In a Violent Nature (2024) User Reviews

What a clever film

[justinbolles-43005 · 7/10 · 1 June 2024]

Disclaimer: this film is only intended for slasher fans. Ones who love the cliches and tropes of the genre and want to see them flipped on their head and played around with. The change of POV, the off camera kills slowly dwindling away until everything in its practical effects glory is displayed with a refusal to turn the camera from anything, and the (in a good way) head scratching ending.

This review isn't to gatekeep this film, it's just to let people know who the intended audience is. I've seen many films where I wasn't the intended audience and the point of the film was lost on me. The early review to this film were very negative so I was bracing for a bad time but was surprised. This is one of those rare love letters to the genre that really requires additional watching of at least the classics to see what the director was going for. Otherwise it's just going to seem like senseless kills and walking around with no substance, where the true substance lies in the established features of the genre itself that it puts its twist on.

Overall a fun time with some genuinely great moments and a must watch for slasher fans.

For Horror/Movie Fans Only~

[christopherholmes-52822 · 7/10 · 31 May 2024]

This was scary, suspenseful, graphic and funny at times. It is completely different from any other Slasher film you've ever seen. Immersive and beautiful cinematography throughout. Nothing to over think or criticize. It's just a fun and new perspective of a classic tale.

The lack of music made the soundscape ultra realistic. If you enjoy movies with light (but necessary) dialogue and context clues being left for you the viewer then you will definitely enjoy this new take on a tired genre. The kill scenes were absolutely incredible and often hard to watch till the end. Really great practical effects.

Go support the smaller movies with new ideas so the studios will allow more to be made for us!

In a Violent Nature is a unique and entertaining addition to the horror genre that falls short of its potential, but I'd definitely watch a sequel

[kevin_robbins · 6/10 · 29 May 2024]

My wife and I saw In a Violent Nature (2024) at a screening at Alamo Drafthouse last night. The storyline follows a spirit that is awoken by some local campers, and they soon discover that this spirit has 60 years of pent-up anger, which they are about to experience firsthand.

This film is written and directed by Chris Nash (ABCs of Death 2 segment), in his directorial debut, and stars Ry Barrett (Cult Hero), Andrea Pavlovic (Learn to Swim), Cameron Love (An Unexpected Killer) and Sam Roulston (Mood).

I'll start by saying I wanted to like this movie much more. This is a very unique slasher in terms of its filming, storytelling, and overall cinematography. The horror elements are top-notch, featuring some of the best kill scenes I've seen in 2024. The unique kills and elite gore are absolutely awesome. Unfortunately, the story itself is extremely stale. There are excessively long sequences of walking or running through the woods with nothing happening. While this gives a realistic feel to how a real serial killer might operate, and their victims, the camper elements are purposely clichéd and cheesy, with bad lines and terrible acting. This intentional bad dialogue doesn't fit the killer's narrative. The campfire narration of the backstory is especially awful. On the other hand, I loved the killer, his backstory, and his presentation. This movie could have been much better with improved editing, a better cast, and a slightly bigger budget.

In conclusion, In a Violent Nature is a unique and entertaining addition to the horror genre that falls short of its potential, but I'd definitely watch a sequel. I would score this a 6/10 and strongly recommend it.

Ry Barrett on the big screen, good for him. Watch "The Demolisher" for a similar feel

[TuesdayThe17th · 7/10 · 2 June 2024]

Went to see this movie in theaters last night with my wife. I very rarely see movies in theaters but this one I just had to see asap because I'm an indie horror fiend and I love supporting low budget horror films in theaters.

The film follows the unsettled soul of Johnny, a now deranged killer that was put to rest years ago after an accident happened in town. Now, his soul is unsettled and after his grave is tampered with, he is resurrected to wreak carnage upon any and all as he seeks to retrieve his locket that was taken from his grave. Oddly though, the locket is what kept him in the ground so why would he be looking for it? You'd think it's something that is used against him as a weapon. The only weapon that can hurt him.

There is literally zero depth to this movie. Johnny stalks his victims one at a time unleashing bloody kills upon them and that's it. Yes it is a reminder of what true slasher films are made of but it's like, a little too labs of to be a big triumph. This movie was made 4 years ago and is just getting a release. I think this is a better time for its release but it still lacks an identity to call its own. We get camera angles from over the killers shoulder but we equally get traditional camera shots so it's almost like the movie is unsure of its direction and style. It's artsy but not artsy enough. The shots are so run of the mill. We can hear the vapid dialogue between characters even when Johnny is a quarter mile away. This is because the movie closely follows the killer as he is in the spotlight but we still need to hear the story lines and the banter between the unsuspecting victims. It's weird and I haven't seen it really before but it's the only way we can actually hear any talking because Johnny doesn't talk. You'd think we hear the convos as Johnny gets closer but no, we hear them loud and clear from very far away. It's almost like putting a soundtrack in a found footage film that wasn't supposed to be fictionally edited.

The kills are good. The beginning is slow and boring as is the entire movie for that matter but it still speaks to me because of the design and locations of the movie. The silence of the deep wood. The crickets and birds chirping and the unforgiving nature of our killer. This movie reminds me of another Ry Barrett movie, "The Demolisher". Which is maybe a slightly better movie overall.

I liked it, You probably won't.

Nash's Violent Nature: Pretentious Gore or An Art House Love Letter to 80s Exploitation

[babyjaguar · 6/10 · 30 May 2024]

Nash's new film, In A Violent Nature explores the killer instinct within surreal and the usage of the beautiful Canadian landscapes. Nash not new to the fantasy and horror with his 2016 The Void surreal epic but there's a lot of studies here with creative camera angles, to explore its violence.

Nash did it in a successful way, but mixing the perspective of the hunter and the prey, in some ways reminiscing the 2003 critically acclaimed French film, High Tension and the lesser appreciated 2019 film, Random Acts of Violence. It also will fulfill gorehounds on the violent scenes, giving a lot seemingly homtage to Friday the 13th Jason character.

Also exploring the Final Girl mythological definition. Nash's usage of an non existent soundtrack (using occasional nature sounds and some pop tracks) helps the tension and credibility of the film violence.

A beautiful slow and gory mess

[jadamwood-70565 · 6/10 · 1 June 2024]

The scenery is beautiful, the pacing is slower than expected and I expected it to be slow. The kills promised creative kills which there was a couple good ones but even then it left me wanting something of higher energy or something that produces a fear response as a minimum. I don't regret watching it but I won't revisit it any time soon. If I could add some ambient score or anything to add something other than rhythmic footsteps and make me care for a character to hope to survive, those would also be a plus. It was a well crafted film otherwise for a debut. I certainly couldn't make it look that good. Practical effects were great but believe it or not the gore was lacking for what the movie was marketed for.

What a waste of time

[tvankirk-51873 · 1/10 · 2 June 2024]

So wanted to like this movie. Too many long, drawn out sequences of walking. Poor story line, bad dialogue. Yes, there were a few create kills, but couldn't save this dog of a movie. But I will give props for in in particular, haven't seen that before and based on the reaction in the theater, no by else had as well.

If they remove the walking and the stupid pointless story towards the end, the movie would be about 20 minutes long.

I was couldn't wait for this movie to be over. Not one person in the theater liked this movie. One of the worst "horror" movies I've seen in a long time.

Don't waste your time or money.

Exactly what you expect and I loved it

[JaKrispy84 · 8/10 · 1 June 2024]

I almost felt weird loving such a brutal movie. It's the definition of a slasher film but it follows the killer rather than the victims. Brilliant.

Yes, he walks a lot. I didn't mind that aspect because I found the sound of his slow steps on the leaves & ground creepy and anxiety-inducing, which is exactly what I want from a horror movie. The dialogue is limited and typical teens in a cabin drama, but not overdone. The whole point is about the guy killing for no reason. It's very well shot and the special effects are amazing, no obvious CGI from what I could tell.

Yes, the kill scenes are creatively brutal and worth all the walking/stalking that happens. I recommend seeing it in the theater if you can because it absolutely enhances the experience. Plus everyone in the audience audibly reacts to the gore together. Lots of "whatttt the fuuuucks" and shocked laughs during and after each one. Overall I had a good time and would watch it again.

Cult masterpiece!!

[bbickley13-921-58664 · 7/10 · 4 June 2024]

There is a brilliance to it. Its feels like a great filmmaker came along and just brought sophistication to a slasher film. Kinda on the guise of Tarantino with Pulp Fiction or Cameron with Aliens. In a violent nature does not deserve to be this good yet the filmmakers loved and respect the genre enough to make it so.

Coming at you mostly from the perception of the slasher himself, In A Violent Nature is in the essence of those 80s slasher films but there is a particular mastery of the camera movements that gives the film a certain depth that I was not expecting.

Although, I must admit the filmmakers did get full of themselves at some point. This film had some brutal and gory death scenes. While one in particular was the crème de la crème of mutualization the film also has one huge miss because it felt like they tried too hard with it.

But, overall, this was not different that your architype slasher movie but it was made differently than anything I've seen before and that's what makes it the quintessential watch for all horror fans.

See the movie poster? There. Now you've seen most of the movie.

[jjjunob · 1/10 · 15 April 2024]

The first slasher movie to show it from the killer's point of view! But you know why the others don't? Because it's boring. Apparently slashers spend most of their time walking around--in this movie, as the camera follows them. But without the shock and fear and suspense as the victims discover what's happening and try to escape . . . There's just not much there.

As for the backstory, it's the same old "abused kid comes back from the dead to get his revenge."

Is your thing is creative, extreme gore? Then there's something here for you. But in any case, I recommend watching it in a format where you can fast forward through all the 'walking around' scenes. You won't miss a thing, I promise.

Ground-breaking new slasher film that fans who grew up watching slasher films will enjoy!

[eborrego · 8/10 · 2 June 2024]

So I was born in 1971 and grew up watching slasher films - in fact the genre started in my lifetime so I a seasoned and jaded slasher fan. Remember Fangoria? I used to buy that magazine as a teen. I took my nephew (born 2000) to go see the movie and I really enjoyed myself. I've never rooted for the slasher but in this film I was rooting for the slasher. It was very cool. There was no anticipatory music prior to the kills. I appreciated that immensely having grown up on the trope of the music preceding the kill. The perspective of the camera was innovative and I appreciated the fact that the suspense and tension was allowed to simmer. No boring dialogue between all the victims like in most prior films. This film was revolutionary in how it handled this genre. The ending was excellent.

An experiment for slasher diehards

[drownsoda90 · 7/10 · 31 May 2024]

Have you ever wanted a peek behind the curtain on Jason Voorhees as he stalks his teenage Camp Crystal Lake fodder? If so, "In a Violent Nature" gives horror fans the opportunity, as it follows a hulking killer who is supernaturally awakened from his grave deep in the woods, and begins stalking and brutally killing off anyone who crosses his path.

While this film is sure to alienate general audiences, fans of the horror and slasher genres are likely to have some fun with this novel (albeit simplistic) concept. First things first: This film is languorous in its pacing. There are countless protracted sequences in which the killer is followed by the camera as he lumbers through the terrain (which is gorgeously photographed), occasionally encountering (and eventually preying on) the unfortunate people who happen to be having a nature outing. Despite this, I didn't find the film veering into tedium, and, ultimately, this is a low-stakes watch by any measure: Because the focal point is the killer, there is little narrative commitment and the characters are sparsely drawn. It is all ultimately an experiment in perspective that takes some gambles but I think ultimately reaps rewards.

The most casual filmgoers will note the "Friday the 13th" and Jason Voorhees references here, which are aplenty, but the film also shares a lot in common with lesser-known '80s slashers such as "The Prey" or even "Madman" (the latter in regard to its eco-horror subtext, the former more so in terms of the mythology building of its killer). The film is really a love letter to these movies, albeit with a built-in gimmick. The actors here do what they can with the skeletal screenplay and serve their roles as ciphers for brutality--and there is in fact plenty of it. In terms of gore, the film delivers on its title, boasting some nasty and over-the-top murder sequences that are true showstoppers.

There is a shift in the last act of the film that in some sense betrays the commitment to its exercise, but slasher alumna Lauren-Marie Taylor (those who know will recognize her from "Friday the 13th Part 2" and "Girls Nite Out") is more than enough to make this worthwhile. All in all, "In a Violent Nature" is not a film that will have a wide appeal, but slasher fans who have pondered the more mundane mechanics of how a killer like Jason Voorhees earns his keep will find this experiment of a film worth watching. 7/10.

In Nature, Occasionally Violent.

[sherlock-96707 · 4/10 · 1 June 2024]

If I had to watch one more shot of the killer walking through the forest, a damn field, or some other picturesque landscape I would have sworn I was watching a 3rd person nature documentary.

I don't mind a film being slow for the sake of tension building or for a great payoff (think Jaws, slow but a HUGE payoff) but this was slow and tedious to the point I thought the director was having a joke at the watcher's expense. It genuinely went on for so long or so repetitively at times I particularly thought I was watching a satirical horror movie. Think of that scene in Monte Python and the Holy Grail where they replay the same scene of a knight running towards you over and over.

There were some original kills (credit where credit is due, the overlook kill was fantastic) but to see other reviews saying that it's horrifying, and the most frightening, gory film they've seen makes me question how much horror the reviewers have actually seen.

It's a more ambient Friday the 13th / Jason film and nothing more.

Walking out of the theater, I passed a man who turned to his wife and said, "Well, we'll never get that time back" and he's absolutely right.

This is cinema for people who enjoy cinema.

[LikeallHungarians · 7/10 · 2 June 2024]

This is radical cinema (for a movie theater chain release).

"A slasher from the POV of the killer" pretty much describes it all, but we can get more specific than that. This is a close third-person film following a Jason-esque slasher in a knowing parody of Friday the 13th. The pacing takes its time, with photography that is in multiple shots beautiful. That attention to the visual details of cinema, at the expense of any depth of plot or character, and even eschewing the typical modern scare tactics of horror (e.g. Jump scares, absence of daylight), is wholly foreign to Hollywood releases from time immemorial. And what a shame that is--this picture begs the question, why aren't more, if not all slashers shot this way?

The deconstruction of slasher tropes is mainly visual--the writing is shallow, and most of the scenes aren't to be taken seriously (there is one, drawn-out scene that is truly disturbing, which is a credit to the actor portraying the victim, as well as the framing of the sequence). And, for the postmodern viewer, there is from start to finish one cloyingly unanswered question: who is supposed to be holding this quite mobile camera?

Horror with an interesting gimmick

[thefuzzydan · 6/10 · 6 June 2024]

In a Violent Nature is, put simply, what a Friday the 13th film would have been like from Jason's point of view. The visual storytelling gimmick of the camera almost always following behind the lumbering killer is reminiscent of many popular horror games like Dead By Daylight, Texas Chain Saw Massacre and, yes, Friday the 13th. This style of storytelling will likely be a treat for horror/slasher film fans but may be a chore for casual viewers. Plus, even the most die-hard horror fan may find repeat viewings tedious without the ability to experience the originality of the film over again. Also, the acting is sub-par at best and gets grating very quickly.

What did I just watch lol

[anecysiarobertson · 7/10 · 1 June 2024]

Who ever made this... has a crazy imagination. Kill after kill I found myself thinking, 'what am I watching?' The film was shot beautifully, the scenery is stunning. Overall, I think this is a good mixture of Terrifier and Friday the 13th. Gruesome silent killer. My only dislikes was that there were scenes that I feel like went on too long. For an 1h and 34 minutes, there were times where I was checking the time during the calmer scenes. I would love to see James A Janise on the Kill Count covering this movie. Wonder what he would say about this film. I would also love to note that this looked like all practical effects and I think that's rad. Little to no noticeable CGI which is always a pleasure to see in a Horror Movie.

It's ok - needed a better third act

[RussHog · 5/10 · 1 June 2024]

In a Violent Nature is an anti-story film about a rather unique anti-hero...meet Johnny. He is sort of like Jason Vorhees. If you take his mother's necklace that guards his grave, he rises from the dead and goes on a rampage like s Friday the 13th movie.

80% of this movie is just Johnny stomping through the woods, spying on kids, getting his weapons and mask. Which, although it gets boring, is kind of effective and actually pretty thought-provoking.

The other 20% of the film we see the teenagers (one of them stole his mother's necklace) and the police captain who stopped his rampage ten years ago. These characters are seen from Johnny's POV as they go through the 'tropes' of a slasher film...such as underage sex while camping by a lake, or being the strange old guy who warns the kids of the danger, etc.

About 5% of this film are the kills, which are pretty good and link back to the story so it's not just gratuitous. It's important to note that in the average Jason movie, the main character would often find half the dead bodies as she ran from the villain near the end, and in this one (because we see the film from Johnny's POV) we see all the kills and it's kind of unsettling and effective.

The big problem with this film is that because this is an anti-story film about an anti-hero, it has an anti-story ending where we don't have the normal climax of a slasher film. This film desperately needed the final showdown between our hero and the main teenage girl...and we never get it. Instead, there is more of a thoughtful lesson about how the stories of what goes on in the violent woods don't always match up with reality, and while we, the audience, maybe left to ponder...and even have some sympathy for Johnny...we certainly aren't entertained or moved or having any kind of cathartic reaction to this information.

Overall, this is a decent arthouse film with a good idea that - at times - is effectively executed...but the lack of a real ending leaves the film kind of meaningless. You have to deliver on the promise of the premise, and you can't just skip the final act of a horror film and replace it with an ambiguous lesson on truth v fiction and morality.

I can't recommend the film, but it was interesting and had some good ideas.

A unique experimental approach to the slasher genre

[plurlife1989 · 8/10 · 1 June 2024]

I really appreciate that this movie is trying to stand out from other slasher films by telling most of the story from the perspective of the killer instead of following the storyline of the protagonists. This is something I had never seen before and it definitely adds a lingering sense of dread as you're watching everything play out. There were a few parts that I felt dragged on longer than necessary where the camera was just following the killer as he was walking slowly through the woods for several minutes at a time and nothing else was happening. I understand that the filmmakers were trying to maintain the tension they had built up, but I felt it actually negated the tension at times and some of the walking sequences could've been cut down. But overall, it was very creepy & entertaining.

Another great positive for this movie is the kills. If you're someone who enjoys seeing brutal, gory, over-the-top violent kills in slasher movies, then this movie definitely delivers. The kills don't start until like 30 mins in, but the movie definitely rewards the audience for their patience. One kill scene in particular with one of the girls is especially savage in how he dismembers her in the most insane way possible. The entire movie theater was busting out in screams & laughter while I was watching it, none of us could believe what we were seeing. If you've already seen the movie, you probably know which kill scene I'm talking about.

While there's a lot to like with this movie, it's definitely not a perfect horror movie. First of all, the acting is pretty terrible for the most part, especially the 'final girl' actress who was basically phoning it in for the last 20 mins of the film when all the scary stuff was happening to her character. Also, the killer's backstory & general storyline through this film feels very much like a ripoff of something we've already seen in the Jason Voorhees saga. The monster got killed by the town in some tragic accident, comes back supernaturally & starts massacring everyone, and the town needs to figure out how to defeat the monster & lay it to rest again. It's almost exactly the same as Jason's backstory with a few new details added in. I didn't hate it, but it's not anything original. Also, the ending of this movie was TERRIBLE. The filmmakers did a great job of instilling that lingering tension until the credits rolled, but I was hoping all that tension would have some kind of payoff, but there wasn't. The filmmakers included an easter egg suggesting that there could possibly be a sequel, but other than that, the ending was very unsatisfying.

And in usual horror movie fashion, all the characters are extremely stupid and have absolutely no will to live or sense of self-preservation whatsoever, which means they all make very stupid decisions & inevitably get picked off one by one. This horror movie trope is so played out & cliche at this point. Much like the Jason movies, these are just interchangeable idiots lined up for the slaughter and when it's their turn, they basically just stand there & take their deaths. I hate when characters are written like this because there's no point in caring about anyone when you know they're all just gonna get killed and they're not gonna even try to survive. After the movie was over, I couldn't tell you a single character's name, that's how uninteresting & dispensable everyone was. Even the 'final girl' was boring, to the point where I was actually hoping there would be no survivors, because the monster's scenes were way more entertaining than anything the other characters brought to the movie.

Overall, while this movie is far from perfect, I'd say its definitely worth a look. It's not anything groundbreaking but it does a few things that are very creative & creepy. Its definitely one of the better Shudder films I've seen.

In a tedious nature

[bausermannicholas · 6/10 · 3 June 2024]

I try to rate films for what they're suppose to be. As in what year they're made, the genre, and budget etc. In my opinion they tried something new or at least not often done. Following the killer around instead of the victims. While different I don't think it works.

I was impressed with the decision to shoot it in full frame. Like The Witch full frame works visually in the woods for my taste. I like seeing the tall tree tops in frame, it places me in the setting. I also enjoyed the sound design. The lack of music telling me how to feel or make me jump was refreshing. Other than those things, I find following the undead through the woods with the same over the shoulder shot very tedious. That and not getting to spend much time with any victim makes their deaths less thrilling. I actually yawned during a long drawn out scene involving a log splitter. Yes we do get to witness some good kills. Any slasher fan knows that's a big part of what makes an exciting slasher movie. A slasher isn't suppose to be a pure art film so I'm not judging it as that, nor would I judge a drama by comedy standards. Saying that any movie should have some artistic merit. As a slasher I will give it a 6 for the fact they made some nice touches with framing, sound, and delivering a couple gory kills. I believe the film maker had a vision and executed it fairly well, I'm just not sure it really works. Only the end section when we finally switch perspectives to the final girl does any tension build. It's not the worst or best slasher movie, it's different. Being different doesn't save it from being a bit of a tedious watch that doesn't fully pay off for me.

Worst Horror Of 2024?

[gagegenthner-56655 · 2/10 · 31 May 2024]

In The Words That A Stranger Said To Me "If I Wanted To Go For A Walk, I Would Have Just Went For A Hike"

What Could Have Been A Unique Idea Is Plagued Buy A Primarily Boring Movie With A Few Memorable Kills.

The Movie Opens up to a very slow moving character walking, which sets up 90% of the movie

Walking, walking, off screen kill, walking , walking, Terrible series of dialogue, walking walking, kill, walking walking kill repeat, repeat

The movie sets up this relentless "jason like" figure hellbent on revenge, just for an absolute snooze fest of a finale with one kill, and a woman who got a way. But you have to listen to a 10 minute speech about a bear attack before getting to the ending.

I was very excited to see this film, but struggled to stay awake throughout

Avoid at all costs.

The Slasher of Graphic

[kmkevinn-64733 · 9/10 · 14 May 2024]

"In a Violent Nature" emerges as a visceral tour de force in the realm of slasher horror, a genre that often revels in its own excess. Director Chris Nash's homage to the low-budget '80s slashers is both a nod to the past and a savage reimagining for the modern era. The film's narrative, while not groundbreaking, serves as a sturdy scaffold for the true star of the show: the kills. The undead protagonist, Johnny, is a relentless force, his origin story rooted in a tragic mishap that sees him resurrected with a singular, vengeful purpose. The practical effects are a standout, with each kill executed with a level of gore and creativity that pushes the boundaries of the genre. The use of traditional tools of death, such as a hatchet and drag hooks, lends a brutal authenticity to Johnny's rampage. The cinematography is deliberate, with lingering shots that build tension and a camera that stalks its prey with the same predatory focus as Johnny himself. The film's pacing is unyielding, each scene meticulously crafted to escalate the horror until it reaches a crescendo of blood and terror. The performances are commendable, particularly given the film's modest budget. The rest of the cast are forgettable and don't trust them one bit, remember you're here for the gruesome kills not for other characters, Johnny is your main focus.

"In a Violent Nature" is not just a slasher film; it's a statement. It's a bloody, unapologetic celebration of the genre that understands its roots and is not afraid to hack its way through the underbrush to carve out its own legacy. With its unflinching approach to horror and a killer who could very well become the next icon of terror.

The first act is promising but the novelty of killer's perspective wears off fast.

[nERDbOX_Dave · 6/10 · 30 May 2024]

"In a Violent Nature" sets out with an intriguing premise: a slasher flick seen entirely from the killer's perspective. This undead dude named Johnny, resurrected by meddling campers, is on a bloody quest to reclaim a mysterious locket.

Simple enough, I'm in.

The first act is promising. The cinematography is cool, with a voyeuristic perspective that places you right in Johnny's rotting shoes (or lack thereof). Some of kills are undeniably brutal, with a focus on practical effects that'll make you squirm. It feels almost like a first-person video game at times, and for a horror fan, that's an initial thrill.

But here's where things get messy. The novelty of Johnny's perspective wears off fast. The movie becomes repetitive. We see him lumber through the woods (this is where I wished I could mash the sprint button on my controller to get him to move quicker - so much walking), fixate on the teens through the trees, then unleash another gruesome kill.

The campers themselves are forgettable slasher fodder. We don't care about them, and there's no attempt to make them interesting. They're just there to be gruesome set pieces.

Then comes the ending. Let's just say it's a massive letdown. The build-up to the climax fizzles out with a whimper, leaving you feeling cheated after a slog through repetitive sequences. I honestly don't know if I would seek this out to watch again, but may possibly leave it on, if I came across it while it was playing.

The gorehounds will find plenty to appreciate. But the repetitive nature, lack of character development, and a disappointing ending make this a frustrating watch. It's a movie with a great idea that stumbles over its own execution.

An interesting concept that doesn't translate to screen well.

[SlashedProductions · 3/10 · 30 May 2024]

Ever wonder what the killer in the woods is doing behind the scenes? In a Violent Nature answers that question. And it's a whole lot of walking around the woods.

This movie is a cool concept that sounds interesting on paper, but does not translate to screen. There is a complete lack of tension to the whole film. I think this is partially the way it's shot, but also because most (not all) of the time, we know where the killer is. The lack of music is also a detriment.

The killer is not interesting like a Jason or Freddy. And we don't get a chance to know the victims either because we are too busy watching the killer walk around in the forest. It makes for an experience I had nothing to attach myself to, and no one to root for.

The ADR is extremely distracting, and the performances and dialogue are not good. While I commend the movie for being excessively gory, and using all practical effects, I felt like I was watching aged effects. The dead bodies don't look real, and when thrown around they look very bad. I probably normally wouldn't care about this if I was locked into the movie, but I unfortunately was not.

I appreciate it for trying something new. But sometimes things are done a certain way for a reason. In this case, slashers should follow dumb teenagers, and not the silent killers. They are way more fun to watch.

Great idea, not so great execution

[brennanmckiernan · 6/10 · 5 June 2024]

I REALLY wanted to like this movie, and I did. The concept of taking a typical slasher flick and showing it from the supernatural killers perspective is a fresh take on the genre. But there are a LOT of flaws.

First things first, is the killer invisible? Because while he is supposed to be "stalking" his prey, he pretty much just walks up to them and they somehow don't see or hear him until he's a few feet away. And this isn't at night where he can blend in the shadows, he just walks right up to them. There are MANY long tales of him just walking through the Forrest and there is no blending in. He sticks out like a sore thumb and for characters who are supposed to be on high alert after finding some of their friends dead, they are almost comically unaware of their surrounding.

This is another problem that I had with the movie, but I don't think it's a problem for everybody, just my own personal take. But by shooting this from the killer's perspective, you don't really care about any of the victims. There's not enough backstory to know anything about them, and you don't see enough interaction between them to really care if any of them live or die. I just saw the movie last night, and I couldn't tell you the final girl's name, or really anything about her.

The biggest problem I did have with the movie is definitely the pacing. It's one thing to try to build suspense, but you could have easily cut 40 minutes out of this film and told the same story. Even the end when the final girl seems to have escaped and is picked up by a random woman driving down the road. I think the audience was meant to feel like some big reversal was coming. Like maybe the driver was in League with the supernatural killer, or that she hadn't gotten away in the killer was just waiting for her to slow down. But instead it was just a long drawn out, borderline tedious scene, which sent the movie out on more of a "meh" then a whimper or a bang.

That is not to say this movie doesn't have some great elements. The kills were particularly brutal. I don't want to give the biggest one away, but if you liked movies like "Terrifier" or "Terrifier 2" this movie is worth watching. But this is another area where pacing is a problem. One victim is taken apart by a log splitter after having his spine crushed. Maybe for some it was more horrific to see him slowly dismembered, but for me it was more, "Yeah he's dead.... Ok now you're cutting off one arm.... Ok now the other....ok NOW his head." It was more tedious than hard to watch.

(On a side note, some deaths made no senseOur two remaining protagonists attempt to lure the killer into some kind of trap. But one of them pops up right behind the killer and says, "Ha we got you now." Only for the killer too repeatedly, and I mean REPEATEDLY, bash him in the face with an axe. I'm not really sure what the plan was there. And the final girl just kind of stands and watches him demolished the guy's face for a good two or three minutes with no emotion. She doesn't seem to be "Frozen with fear", more like she's waiting for him to finish.

I'm rereading my own review and I don't think I'm giving enough of the opinion that this is a watchable movie. It very much is. There is great cinematography, an interesting concept, and for horror movie fans, some great violence and Gore. Overall this movie could have used a little more backstory for either the victims and the killer, and a lot less time walking around the admittedly beautiful scenery. If they make a sequel, I'd see it. But probably wait for it to make it to streaming.

Low Budget kinda wack

[hizzodrizzo-05864 · 6/10 · 1 June 2024]

I had high expectations but this movie fell short. No musical score, which makes a horror movie great. Killings were just bland gore kills. Terrible story and very slow pace. I fell asleep almost a couple times because of the camera following the killer just walking around. It could have been a lot better but the plot was terrible and some of the camera angles were atrocious. It makes Jason and the Michael Myers look great , this is like Jason and Michael Myers step child that never made it. I think the hype of a new angle of following the killer sounded great on paper but doesn't pan out very well, or at least not directed very well. I think they could of done a better job with the pace, score and plot.