In a Violent Nature

In my oft-proclaimed enjoyment of discovering the horror genre more throughout my time of doing Rath's Reviews, I have to remember that there are duds out there too. Films that were the ones to drag horror down in the muck before many great films seemed to become more mainstream (thanks, A24!). 

In a Violent Nature is one such dud, but I give it points for trying something new. Pitched as "What if we made a horror/slasher film from the killer's POV?", it takes that job quite literally. In a weird way that's reminiscent of a very different kind of horror film, Son of Saul (how's that for a deep cut?), Violent Nature's camera trails behind our hulking, brooding killer's shoulders for 80-85% of the entire runtime. This choice is one the film is committed to, for better or worse. There are moments of shockingly great cinematography while doing this (a particular walk through a field during sunset is one of them), while the boredom creeps in very quickly. 

And ultimately, that's In a Violent Nature's biggest issue: it's dull during the "in between" moments. This isn't a long film at just 94 minutes, but it feels like 2+ hours. While filmmaker Chris Nash is newer (according to my research), it's worth applauding his unique approach, even if it's fair to mention this needed a better director and visionary. We needed to have a more dynamic film that could have captured the same approach, but in more creative ways...and also ones that provided any semblance of "Why should I care?". The fact that there's minimal story aside from a few lore snippets here and there also makes In a Violent Nature a bit of a chore because you just don't care all that much. In fact, I'd even say it comes across as pretty mean because the kids he's hunting aren't the most annoying I've ever seen in a horror film. I'm also very passionate that this approach needed a remarkable original score. Layered over the sounds of his footfalls through nature, I needed music that put me on edge. I'm not even sure there's a single moment of music in this, and I made note there certainly wasn't during all the walking moments. If ever there was a movie gagging for some complimentary music, it's this one. 

It is worth noting that the kills are ab-so-f**k-ing-lute-ly b.r.u.t.a.l. They're all pretty fake looking because of how gory they are; at a certain point you can tell we're working with dummies and props. That doesn't stop them from being shocking in nature though. As many have stated before me, the shock factor of the "yoga"/"hill" girl kill is real. I was squirming in my seat, squinting my eyes, and honestly felt a bit nauseous. The sound effects in particular were...[barfs real quick]...yeah, rough. For a horror film, is that a good thing? I can't quite say. As I mentioned, it felt particularly mean spirited for a girl who had but a handful of normal lines up to that point (and didn't come across as a bad person/character) so the kill - and the kills overall - feel misplaced in emotional impact. They're simply just meat for him to play with his food, and that's never all that compelling. In the best horror films you either really want a certain character to die and are thankful when they do or you're rooting for certain characters and are shocked by their deaths. Aside from the brutality here, nothing shocked me. 

Given the visceral nature of the kills - which may be enough for some people to investigate - In a Violent Nature gets points for trying something new and having some moments of great filmmaking. But it's story falls flat, it can feel like a chore, and the kills may leave a mark, but I'm not sure it's the right one. 

Rapid Rath's Review Score | 5/10