In a Violent Nature

It is so ruthlessly, mercilessly, casually, relentlessly, violent that it will deter lots of viewers, which is understandable but unfortunate for the director because I think he is making a point about the slasher movie genre.

It is beautifully shot and deeply considered. But it’s an approach that won’t work for everyone.

The hook, this time, is that debut feature director Chris Nash uses some formal arthouse devices to reframe the horror movie antics we’ve repeatedly witnessed...

This is the trouble with nihilism as a foundation for horror: it can’t quicken the pulse, drum up scares, or elicit any fruitful response from the viewer at all.

If you’re looking to get your nerves actively shredded, you might have to seek out other men in masks to accept that particular mission. But from a horror fan’s point of view, this is an absolutely fascinating experiment with form.

It's a really interesting visual stunt for a while, but the problem here is that the plot is just as dumb as all the other [slashers].

Form without substance is pure gimmickry, and while Nash plants some ideas about the unflinching amorality of nature, he fails to dig deep enough to make them germinate. [Full review in Spanish]

Sickos, take heed: In a Violent Nature is some fairly innovative wickedness. It defies enough of the conventional rules of the genre, it might be the final nail in the slasher-movie coffin.

It's not a traditional slasher, but a film that turns the WAY the genre has been treated on its head, changing quick cuts and talkative characters for a mute killer, victims we learn very little of, and a calm directing style. Full review in Spanish.

I feel very strongly about the movie, in that I think it's cool but has a bunch of unfortunate implications for future slasher movies...