"In A Violent Nature", 2024 - Dir. by Chris Nash
There are some good ideas in "In a Violent Nature," (written and directed by Chris Nash), but they never really seem to come together in a coherent way. It's inventive premise runs very thin about halfway through the film and ultimately, for me, the tone ends up being very confused and gives in to several very familiar tropes common to the slasher sub-genre of horror.
When I first heard about this film and then subsequently saw the first trailer, I simply couldn't wait to see it. I had heard great things and I had read the reviews coming out of Sundance, and I thought to myself, "This is the slasher film for me!" I knew what the main conceit of the film was, (which I will get to later), and I thought that it was a very cool idea, and would be something I hadn't seen before. Let's face it, the slasher genre can get very repetitive.
I had also heard about the violence in the film, and that people were "getting sick" and "walking out of theaters." I never give much credence to statements like that because I know they are usually little more than hype. However, let's just say that those statements just made me want to see the movie even more.
Well, I am sad to say that, having finally seen the film, either I completely overhyped it in my head, or it's simply not a great film, or even a good one for that matter. I know that there will be some horror fans who will come after me with torches and pitchforks because of that opinion, but I've never been one to jump on a bandwagon. If I don't like a movie, I'm gonna say so, and I'm gonna say why.
WARNING! - This review WILL have spoilers (not that there's really any mysteries to spoil).
When I first heard about this film and then subsequently saw the first trailer, I simply couldn't wait to see it. I had heard great things and I had read the reviews coming out of Sundance, and I thought to myself, "This is the slasher film for me!" I knew what the main conceit of the film was, (which I will get to later), and I thought that it was a very cool idea, and would be something I hadn't seen before. Let's face it, the slasher genre can get very repetitive.
I had also heard about the violence in the film, and that people were "getting sick" and "walking out of theaters." I never give much credence to statements like that because I know they are usually little more than hype. However, let's just say that those statements just made me want to see the movie even more.
Well, I am sad to say that, having finally seen the film, either I completely overhyped it in my head, or it's simply not a great film, or even a good one for that matter. I know that there will be some horror fans who will come after me with torches and pitchforks because of that opinion, but I've never been one to jump on a bandwagon. If I don't like a movie, I'm gonna say so, and I'm gonna say why.
WARNING! - This review WILL have spoilers (not that there's really any mysteries to spoil).
Photo courtesy of IFC Films
A brief synopsis of the film:
A group of teens is exploring a collapsed fire tower in the woods, apparently in a state park. One of them grabs a gold locket that finds, and in doing so, unwittingly resurrects Johnny, a rotting, hulking figure, who is a vengeful spirit driven by the aftermath of a horrible crime from decades ago.
The killer then stalks the teens, and anyone else who is unfortunate enough to cross paths with him, as he goes on a rampage to retrieve the locket.
That's basically it. Then again, I really don't like to give too many plot details when I review a film.
It's also very important to note that the main conceit of the film is that for 90% of it, the camera follows Johnny as he lumbers through the woods. This at least makes the movie unique in that aspect, as opposed to following around the victims and waiting for them to be slaughtered. There are a few exceptions to this, including one excruciatingly long campfire scene where one of the impending victims tells the story of Johnny during a huge exposition dump.
A group of teens is exploring a collapsed fire tower in the woods, apparently in a state park. One of them grabs a gold locket that finds, and in doing so, unwittingly resurrects Johnny, a rotting, hulking figure, who is a vengeful spirit driven by the aftermath of a horrible crime from decades ago.
The killer then stalks the teens, and anyone else who is unfortunate enough to cross paths with him, as he goes on a rampage to retrieve the locket.
That's basically it. Then again, I really don't like to give too many plot details when I review a film.
It's also very important to note that the main conceit of the film is that for 90% of it, the camera follows Johnny as he lumbers through the woods. This at least makes the movie unique in that aspect, as opposed to following around the victims and waiting for them to be slaughtered. There are a few exceptions to this, including one excruciatingly long campfire scene where one of the impending victims tells the story of Johnny during a huge exposition dump.
Well folks, therein lies the problem for me. This admittedly cool premise wore very thin for me after a while. Huge chunks of runtime are devoted to watching Johnny trudge through the woods. Now, I understand that happens in a lot of slasher films, but this movie takes it to a whole new level. There were times where I thought I had stumbled into a nature documentary.
The scenery is gorgeous and the tracking shots are very well done, and I am the type of horror fan who doesn't mind a "slow burn" type of film, but "In a Violent Nature" takes it to a whole new level. I'm serious, it really does get tiresome especially since there's never any tension. Since we see what Johnny sees, there's no shock or surprise when one of the kills finally happens.
This brings me to one of the things that drove me absolutely CRAZY throughout the whole film. Johnny is a large, hulking figure. Think Jason Voorhees, only a little more jacked, and as he walks, it is with VERY heavy footsteps, IN THE WOODS, over leaves and twigs and such, yet NO ONE ever hears him coming, even when he's ten feet away! There's never even an explanation for this, as in someone listening to loud music over headphone or something like that. Not to mention the fact that all of the people in this movie either had cataracts or else had no peripheral vision whatsoever, because again, Johnny could be a dozen feet away (and remember, his is BIG), and yet no one ever sees him getting closer. It bordered on absurd, and the only thing I could chalk it up to was just the usual slasher trope of "no one ever sees it coming!"
The scenery is gorgeous and the tracking shots are very well done, and I am the type of horror fan who doesn't mind a "slow burn" type of film, but "In a Violent Nature" takes it to a whole new level. I'm serious, it really does get tiresome especially since there's never any tension. Since we see what Johnny sees, there's no shock or surprise when one of the kills finally happens.
This brings me to one of the things that drove me absolutely CRAZY throughout the whole film. Johnny is a large, hulking figure. Think Jason Voorhees, only a little more jacked, and as he walks, it is with VERY heavy footsteps, IN THE WOODS, over leaves and twigs and such, yet NO ONE ever hears him coming, even when he's ten feet away! There's never even an explanation for this, as in someone listening to loud music over headphone or something like that. Not to mention the fact that all of the people in this movie either had cataracts or else had no peripheral vision whatsoever, because again, Johnny could be a dozen feet away (and remember, his is BIG), and yet no one ever sees him getting closer. It bordered on absurd, and the only thing I could chalk it up to was just the usual slasher trope of "no one ever sees it coming!"
Photo by IFC Films
Let's discuss some of the things I actually did like about the film. As I already said, I thought that the overall idea of focusing on the killer is cool. I also like Johnny, although he is a little too reminiscent of Jason Voorhees, but I can forgive that because Jason is iconic and has been copied before.
The cinematography is very good for most of the film, although there is a little too much over-reliance on soft focus and long, lingering shots over Johnny's shoulder. The film really does show of the beauty of the Ontario woods.
Some of the kills are actually very gruesome and awesome, especially the "yoga" scene, which I am sure will go down in horror lore as one of the best, most creative kills in any slasher film.
The cinematography is very good for most of the film, although there is a little too much over-reliance on soft focus and long, lingering shots over Johnny's shoulder. The film really does show of the beauty of the Ontario woods.
Some of the kills are actually very gruesome and awesome, especially the "yoga" scene, which I am sure will go down in horror lore as one of the best, most creative kills in any slasher film.
Now, back to the shit that drove me nuts.....
I get that "victim stupidity" is a part of every horror film, and a lot of times, it can add to the fun. We've all screamed, "No! Don't go upstairs!" at a movie screen and we've all laughed when someone gets killed just for being dumb. There were a few times in this movie where yet again, it was just dumb people doing dumb things, including one scene near the end of the film that was just mind-numbingly stupid.
It also struck me odd that during the afore-mentioned "yoga" kill, the victim either didn't appreciate her impending doom, or was simply too paralyzed with fear to react in any way. She just sort of stands there, emotionless, and accepts her fate. If you watch the film, I think you'll see what I mean. Maybe there was some rationale in the director's mind, but if so, I admit it was lost on me.
Finally, the ending, that GODDAMN ending. In one way, it's a typical "final girl" ending, which was boring, but it also turns into another never-ending exposition dump, but the exposition doesn't make any sense as it doesn't seem to tie into the events of the movie in any way. It's a ten minute ride in a truck as the final girl's rescuer tells a story about her brother being mauled by a bear.
There is one moment when they stop at the side of the road so the rescuer can tend to Final Girl's wounds, where I was waiting for a familiar horror trope to kick in, but it never does. So, I guess it was the director's way of subverting expectations? Maybe? Who the fuck knows. By this point, I just wanted to movie to be over.
I get that "victim stupidity" is a part of every horror film, and a lot of times, it can add to the fun. We've all screamed, "No! Don't go upstairs!" at a movie screen and we've all laughed when someone gets killed just for being dumb. There were a few times in this movie where yet again, it was just dumb people doing dumb things, including one scene near the end of the film that was just mind-numbingly stupid.
It also struck me odd that during the afore-mentioned "yoga" kill, the victim either didn't appreciate her impending doom, or was simply too paralyzed with fear to react in any way. She just sort of stands there, emotionless, and accepts her fate. If you watch the film, I think you'll see what I mean. Maybe there was some rationale in the director's mind, but if so, I admit it was lost on me.
Finally, the ending, that GODDAMN ending. In one way, it's a typical "final girl" ending, which was boring, but it also turns into another never-ending exposition dump, but the exposition doesn't make any sense as it doesn't seem to tie into the events of the movie in any way. It's a ten minute ride in a truck as the final girl's rescuer tells a story about her brother being mauled by a bear.
There is one moment when they stop at the side of the road so the rescuer can tend to Final Girl's wounds, where I was waiting for a familiar horror trope to kick in, but it never does. So, I guess it was the director's way of subverting expectations? Maybe? Who the fuck knows. By this point, I just wanted to movie to be over.
(Me, wandering off into the woods halfway through the movie).
Photo from IFC Films
I'll repeat that I was really looking forward to this movie. I had heard a lot of good things, even though I discounted some of the hype that comes with all these "darlings" of the horror genre, and unfortunately "In a Violent Nature" doesn't live up to it's lofty goals. It's just another slasher film that happens to have some very gruesome and creative kills.
Oh, one last thing about that. Yes, there are a couple of very gory moments, but not anywhere near what the hype machine would have you believe.
As always dear reader, I encourage you to see the film for yourself, as this is just one person's opinion, just like any other opinion floating out there in the ether, but I am also always very honest in my reviews, and this movie was a let-down. I give it credit for some awesome kills and some gorgeous cinematography, but that's it.
Oh, one last thing about that. Yes, there are a couple of very gory moments, but not anywhere near what the hype machine would have you believe.
As always dear reader, I encourage you to see the film for yourself, as this is just one person's opinion, just like any other opinion floating out there in the ether, but I am also always very honest in my reviews, and this movie was a let-down. I give it credit for some awesome kills and some gorgeous cinematography, but that's it.