Director/Writer Chris Nash’s “In a Violent Nature” is as indie as they come. The film’s budget isn’t listed on IMDb, but on the Internet it’s quoted as $3M, but rumored to be as low as $500,000. That’s at least double Damien Leone’s “Terrifier 2,” and 14 times Leone’s first film, “Terrifier.” I mention this because practical effects-wise, the film’s are very similar. “In a Violent Nature” is nowhere as gratuitously gory as Leone’s films (which are made to please gore fans), but sometimes it comes close. However, while slow paced throughout (often far too slow), Nash’s ode to the slasher brings back charm to the genre. This isn’t a film about exploitation nor gratuity, but an homage to the slasher film in a way that mostly works.
The film’s plot is simple: a terrible deed happened to a young boy, Johnny, here played as an ‘adult’ by Ry Barrett, who has eight films under his belt as a stuntman. Johnny died in a terrible prank gone wrong, similar to “The Burning” or any other film of this type you’ve seen. The deed took place in the woods, and shortly thereafter a group of loggers were massacred, which was covered up by the town. But Johnny sometimes comes back. In “Violent Nature,” it’s the stealing of a meaningful pendant hanging on his resting grounds by a group of college-age campers that resurrects him. It’s standard stuff, and Nash isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel here.
Not Strong, but a Good Homage
The plot is weak. It’s not something you can really dance around. I found it interesting, however, that a majority of the film took place in broad sunlight, under the canopy of trees. Johnny walks through the forest (like really walks, sometimes for up to 60 seconds at a time), and often accomplishes nothing of note. Barrett here reminds me of stuntman Kane Hodder in his gait and stature. He doesn’t stomp or breathe menacingly like Hodder, but the feeling is there. The film is adamant to not show his face for most of the picture. However, when it does—once—the effects are better than I would have expected given the indie nature of this film. It feels very much like innumerable indie horror I’ve seen, yet is somehow pleasing all the same.
The group of adolescents the film uses for cannon fodder are a motley crew if ever there was one. There’s Troy (Liam Leone), a frat type guy who seems like he wants to start a fight with Colt (Cameron Love), who just lost his father but had the temerity to be depressed about it on Troy’s weekend away. Then there’s Ehren (Sam Roulston), who’s actually kind of fun, and (*spoiler*) departs the picture much too soon. There’s no shortage of pot smokers and drinkers, and even a would-be lesbian couple who try to work out their feelings for each other as Johnny watches from a distance. The one criticism I’ll say is the script—particularly the dialogue—is patchy. Sometimes the college kids are patronizing and border on bullying, yet in the next scene others will be talking about toxic masculinity and woke culture. It’s sometimes a bit confusing.
Good Atmosphere and Kills
However, we watch a film like this for the atmosphere and the kills. And while the former is standard stuff (woods, streams, etc.), the latter more than makes up for it. “In a Violent Nature” does a rare thing and puts you in the killer’s POV for most of the film. We see his back, as he walks, or his prey, from his point of view. And while the kills are graphic (mostly), Johnny never seems hyper aggressive, which I found odd. But still, somehow Nash avoids the usual cliche of having the victims trip, or stumble, or wave their arms in the air helplessly. Johnny just kind of falls upon them, does something horrible, and the deaths are oddly creative. Some of them involve farm tools (the film takes place in and around a Ranger station near a fire tower), and some involve his bare hands. Johnny finds an axe and a towing hook—meant for logging, I suppose—which he find creative uses for.
Reviews of the film have talked about the brutal nature of the film’s gore, and to be fair, it is over the top and messy. It all seems to be done practically, just like Damien Leone, which is a disappearing art in horror films strewn with CGI. Most of Johnny’s kills are loaded with blood and guts. Many take place for a prolonged amount of time. I’ve never seen a hook used quite like that before, and (*spoiler*) why did he have to use a wood splitter on a person with such detached abandon?
Plenty of Gore
But what makes the film watchable is that despite the messy nature of its gore, it’s never mean, or sadistic. It’s clear in places that Nash is repping homages to both “Friday the 13th” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” The steady camerawork by Pierce Derks doesn’t build tension, but just observes, and the lack of a tell-tale score as in the aforementioned slashers makes the film seem less ominous than it might otherwise. However, for some reason we follow Johnny along. We don’t really side with him, but we don’t mind what he’s doing either. Some gore connoisseurs will doubtless revel in the way Johnny dispatches people, though, and the reveal of his face toward the film’s third act deserves a tipped hat to the FX crew.
All-in-all, “In a Violent Nature” is a fine movie. The end clambers on for too long (a criticism in a film that’s only 1 hours and 18 minutes)—and ends oddly—but there were so many worse places it could have gone. The film’s final moments touch upon a sense of horror and dread that were missing from other parts, but, for its good moments, it’s forgivable. Nash and company render a competent slasher that does’t insult our intelligence while throwing love to the ‘70s and ‘80s pictures that inspired it. And as the film’s getting a sequel, hopefully the next installment will elevate some of its missteps here.
