Writer-director Chris Nash makes his feature debut with In a Violent Nature, now out on VOD. Everyone has been talking about the movie, so I decided I needed to see it myself. That’s an hour and a half, and I’ll never get back.
In the movie, a couple of friends find an old locket. When one takes it, it resurrects Johnny, a vengeful spirit driven by a 60-year-old crime. He’s hungry for payback and fixated on reclaiming the stolen locket. But his wrath doesn’t stop there. Anyone unfortunate enough to cross his path becomes meat for the grinder in his methodical, one-by-one slaughter spree.
Where do I start with this movie? I guess the villain is as good of a place as any. The hulking killer looks halfway decent. He spends half the movie just walking through the woods—stomping around like the Jolly Green Giant in no less than seven scenes, just wandering about the woods with the camera in tow. This grew tiresome by the second walk. I’m not talking about a minute or two; I’m talking about a third of the movie. It was a complete waste of time; it’s just filler. It was a wasted opportunity to add more action or kills. I assume it was meant to add suspense. It didn’t; it was just tedious.
While Johnny’s back story was somewhat interesting, the fact that it was all explained within three minutes with no flashbacks or deep detail gave little reason to identify with or feel sympathy for him. It felt like an afterthought.
A massive undead character killed as a child, but that somehow grew into a hulking killer who hangs out in the woods, killing campers? Hmm, I wonder where we’ve seen that before? Many would likely say the movie was an homage to one of the most recognizable killers in the genre, Jason Vorhees. But when do you cross the line between a tribute and a ripoff? It felt lazy.
The cast includes Andrea Pavolovic, Cameron Love, and Reece Presley, with Ry Barrett as Johnny. I can’t get over how bad the acting was for most characters. The dialogue was terrible. It felt forced and juvenile, even though they were all adults. The strange part is that it came across like this was on purpose. But why?
The kills were brutal, but I can’t shake the feeling I’ve seen them before. One kill, the most violent, takes place on the cliff. It was beyond ridiculous. A woman has her head pulled through her abdomen? It was not believable whatsoever and looked terrible (not in a good way), special effects-wise.
The movie’s only redeemable quality is Pierce Derks’s cinematography. The movie gets this right with impressive shots and a great look. But that’s just not enough to redeem it.
In a Violent Nature had many opportunities to be a great horror movie but missed the mark. Rumor has it that 60% of the movie had to be re-shot due to an illness, which makes things even worse. They had a chance to fix its issues and didn’t, giving us a mediocre movie at best.
