A priceless family heirloom, an unfortunate tragedy, and a blood-soaked quest to get it all back. This sums up a fair share of thrillers, and any further story accoutrement can add to or detract from the final product. In the case of the Chris Nash’s ultra-violent In A Violent Nature, this is all the story we get. The victim of a decades-old crime is re-animated when a group of young adults find said victim’s father’s locket and take it for themselves. Have some killed over less? Yes. Were those kills as gruesome, agonizing, or horrific as the ones in Chris Nash’s POV slasher? Debatable.
In a Violent Nature… No Kidding
Agonizing is the word of the day for this film. On one hand, there are kills that are drawn out and absolutely cruel in their portrayal, namely the wood splitter kill towards the end of the film. Drawn out, watch-through-your-fingers violence is the name of the game for many of the deaths here, even if the first kill of the film is a bait-and-switch off-screen kill. Johnny (Ry Barrett) is an equal opportunity juggernaut, as anyone who stands in his way meets their end, either by his hook and chain or by objects throughout the environment.
Watch “In Violent Nature” Here
Walkies?
The downside of the agonizing nature is the long stretches of time between kills. Normally we’d get character development or looks into the relationships between our soon-to-be victims, but not here. There are long sequences shot from behind Johnny in which he’s walking to his next killing ground… and walking… and walking… and walking. While the scenery is downright picturesque, the storyline is threadbare at best, and those who may have accused gorefests like Terrifier for having no storyline may have a new object of their frustrations.
For what it’s worth, the perspectives we get from director of photography Pierce Derks’ camera work are unique, utilizing long takes and POV shots to add to the tension. Shots that may otherwise be shot close up get a zoomed-out treatment, making the anticipation all that more palpable if you let it. The suspension of disbelief required here may be on par with that of pro wrestling, but even a super-serious slasher can be viewed through slightly silly lens.
Spoilers Ahead
On the subject of silly, there is one kill in particular that I have to highlight: the axe head-splitting which ends up as the final kill of the film. Johnny continues to swing at the head of the victim, even several minutes after the first swing which would have absolutely killed its target. It goes from shocking to agonizing to gut-busting. I found myself cracking up at the absolute ludicrous nature of this kill, particularly its aftermath. Even as our final girl runs off into the forest, we heard the juicy thuds of the axe on brain matter, and my neighbors may have heard me laughing hard enough to wake the dead.
On one hand, In A Violent Nature could be an attempt to reinvent the wheel that only does so well in its mission. The gaming phrase “walking simulator” has been thrown around in the discourse of this film, and especially in the first hour of the film, there’s a case to be made for that. On the other hand, this could be an intentional subversion of the slasher genre, a commentary on the exsanguination over exposition nature of the craft. We barely get names for any of the victims before the final credits roll, and the film’s marketing is all on the violence, right down to the title.
Is this a game-changing film? Ultimately, no. Is it a total wash? Absolutely not. There are some great kills and captivating cinematography to be had, but if that isn’t enough to satisfy the attention span, take a walk in nature instead of watching In A Violent Nature.
'In A Violent Nature' - Unique Doesn't Always Mean Great - Malevolentdark
Director: Chris Nash
Date Created: 1970-01-01 00:33
3