One thing you need to know about me is I love slasher movies. No matter the year or the budget I will watch it and find something to love about it. So when I first got wind of writer/director Chris Nash’s feature debut In A Violent Nature, and that it was being described as an arthouse slasher movie filmed in a similar style to Terrence Malick and Gus Van Sant, I was sold. When a director has the guts to take a genre they love and pay homage to it while also flipping it on its head, I think they deserve all our attention. What Nash has done with In A Violent Nature is a genuinely impressive feat of filmmaking. He took something we love, like Friday the 13th or Sleepaway Camp, and crafted something wholly unique and nasty and terrifying.
For those unaware of what makes In A Violent Nature such a unique take on the slasher genre let me briefly fill you in. Of course we have the familiar: young adults being stalked and slaughtered in the woods by a masked killer with an eerie backstory. But Nash takes all of this and instead of giving us what we expect he gives us something new: ambient slasher realism. The majority of the film consists of long, quiet tracking shots as we follow our slasher Johnny (Ry Barrett) while he hunts the one who stole his locket. As the camera trails behind Johnny you realize we only hear crunching leaves, cars honking, and far off conversations: there is no score or non-diegetic sound. Because of this approach it almost felt like we, the audience, are with Johnny while he’s hunting down the teens. The cinematographer Pierce Derks did an excellent job immersing the viewer in Johnny’s carnage. And even in the moments when he wasn’t onscreen you could still feel his presence surrounding you. Darks and Nash built great tension as they progressed through the story and there were moments where I felt almost sick with anxiety waiting for something to happen.
Courtesy of Pierce Derks // IFC Films & ShudderThe story itself is told in a way that really impressed me. We don’t get a ton of exposition or backstory and, if I’m being honest, we don’t need it. This is a film that doesn’t rely on a full origin story. We learn through a scary campfire tale that Johnny was killed a long time ago during a prank, and that’s really all we need. In his director’s statement Nash said “I wanted to create a world in which we can imagine that this film is actually the fourth or fifth entry in a long-running series.” and I’d say he succeeded. I felt dropped right into the middle of a franchise and that made for such a cool viewing experience! He told us just enough that we were able to follow along and then left it up to the actors and his directing to do the rest. I love when a filmmaker trusts their audience to come along for the ride. And almost everything, save for some moments near the end, really worked. But more on that in a moment.
Before I get into that I need to spend some time talking about the kills in this because WOW. It’s not often I’m watching a horror movie and I find my jaw on the floor because of the violence. When it comes time for Johnny to do what a slasher is meant to do, Nash doesn’t hold back. Johnny kills with sheer brutality and no remorse. No one is spared from his bone crunching, neck snapping rampage. I could talk about all the kills but there is one specific one that I know a lot of folks are talking about, and for good reason! It’s an impressive display of practical special effects and had me almost yelling at my screen because of how gnarly it was. Something I really loved about the way Johnny went about the kills is that to me it felt very casual. It was jarring (in a good way!) when the ambience was broken up by the bloodbath, but to Johnny it seemed as casual as reading the newspaper. Like any proper slasher he will use what he has around him to complete the kill. There is a specific one that involves a very cool overhead tracking shot and a rock that might’ve been my favorite in the whole film. I wasn’t surprised to see some outstanding special effects as Nash comes from a special effects background. He had previously worked on Psycho Goreman and he brought the director/writer of PG, Steve Kostanski onboard to handle the film’s prosthetics. It all worked out in the end as the whole team crafted some really incredible gore that I know is going to be talked about for years to come.
Courtesy of Pierce Derks // IFC Films & ShudderWhile I do love the way Nash approaches the film mainly from Johnny’s POV, I fear the main downfall of In A Violent Nature comes in the film’s end. The story does give us a final girl in Kris (Andrea Pavlovic) which is to be expected as this is still a slasher movie. However the film falls a bit flat after Kris escapes Johnny and is picked up by a driver (Lauren-Marie Taylor) on the road. What follows is a very long scene of the driver monologuing to Kris trying to keep her awake until they can get help. I understand Nash was trying to go forward a few beats after the spot slashers usually end but for me it went on a bit too long. The strong climax was bogged down by the heavy wordiness of the final scene. It didn’t ruin the film for me, not by a long shot, it just didn’t end on as high of a note that it could’ve.
In my review for The Outwaters I mentioned that director Robbie Banfitch made me feel like I was really in the Mojave Desert with the intense filmmaking style. That is also exactly how I felt watching In A Violent Nature. Chris Nash picked me up and dropped me in those woods and forced me to helplessly follow Johnny, unable to do anything but watch. The film commits to the concept 110% and while it doesn’t work all of the time, when it’s in its moments of success it flourishes and gives the viewer a slasher experience like I’ve never seen before. I’m really looking forward to seeing what Nash does next.
You can still catch In A Violent Nature in select theaters. It will hit Shudder later this year.
