User reviews

Someone should count how many steps are taken in this movie. Because that's what you're watching half of the time.

This feels like an artistically shot homage to Friday the 13th from the killer's perspective. There are definitely some creative shots & kills in-between the nature walks, although it doesn't justify the 90+ minute runtime.

Makeup and effects were good/great. It's visually compelling throughout.

There is essentially no character development. If anything, the kids mostly come off as unlikable, so there's really no compassion for any of the people getting mindlessly slaughtered.

Worth watching if you're really into slashers & nature documentaries.

Decent concept that just turns out insanely boring. There's really not much you can say about an ogre spending almost the entire movie walking slowly through the woods - you feel like you're playing a video game instead of watching a movie. There's one really good kill, but it doesn't compensate for everything else. There's almost no chance anyone who isn't a fan of slashers will like this, and even if you are it's probably 50/50 which way you'll fall in how you view it.

"Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" is a much better movie if you want to watch something from the killer's perspective.

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.

Essentially a 'Friday The 13th' fan film with an artier title, 'In A Violent Nature (2024)' takes its genre and inverts it by putting us squarely in the perspective of its killer. It follows the formula of a very specific type of slasher pretty much to a tee, revelling in the little details that make it feel like the sequel to something that would've thrived at horror conventions, but it does so while putting its camera in a different location. The victims who usually take up most of the screen time in movies like this are placed at the edges of the frame or on the other side of windows, put where the villain is typically positioned in those same movies. We experience the characters' dynamics and conflicts as the killer would, overhearing them as fragmented and inessential pieces of filler in the grim narrative they're unaware they play a part in. The grounded, no-frills aesthetic combines with the unashamedly measured pacing to plant you in a world that feels less heightened than you're accustomed to with films of this nature, ultimately making the affair feel - loosely speaking - like what would really happen if the story conventions of a slasher were to play out in reality. This is one of the movie's major strengths, as it - along with his unparalleled capacity for absurd yet unsettling violence - makes the hulking madman at its core more frightening than his most direct inspiration (although it may just be that Jason's pop-culture status makes him feel like a morbid warm hug and grants him immunity from true fear on the part of an audience who's been counterintuitively rooting for him since the 1980s, whereas Johnny is just some guy who hasn't been osmosed into pop culture to the point that he's a star in his own right).

One of the best words to describe the feature is uncompromising, as it doesn't seem to truly care if its audience is on board with what it's doing. Its most obviously confronting aspect is its sometimes crushingly slow pace, which is used to build a feeling of dread by simply forcing you to inhabit the same space as the guy who's going to inflict great pain on the unsuspecting people he comes across. As an experience, it's almost uncomfortable by design, with its difficult-to-watch nature reflecting the idea that it isn't supposed to be nice. The shockingly brutal violence is often presented in protracted long takes that really highlight its barbarity. These scenes seamlessly blend practical effects with often widely shot footage, further making each and every kill feel as real as possible (the introduction of gore is rarely hidden by obvious cuts, for instance). This removes - or, at least, lessens - the usual genre trappings that allows audiences to form a healthy disconnect between real violence and movie violence, blurring the line to the point that it doesn't occupy the same oddly crowd-pleasing place as many of its most obvious inspirations. It isn't enjoyable in the same way, but it's still entertaining in its own, altogether more horrific fashion. A lot of the flick's conventional flaws are what make it distinct. Its commitment to its concept is generally really impressive, and it's hard to begrudge the movie for doing exactly what it wants to. Sure, it's slow and somewhat repetitive, often to the point where you feel your mind wandering in-between bouts of bloody bodily harm, but it's rarely anything less than interesting. Even if I don't find it particularly scary or even all that compelling, I admire its confidence and skill.

There is one consistent issue with the affair, though: it doesn't see things through. This is true in almost every area. It unflinchingly barrels towards its target, only to clumsily pull up at the last second and fly just far enough off course that you really notice its mishap. If you're going to do something, you should do it with conviction. To be fair, it's not conviction the film lacks; it just makes odd choices that lead to the same result. Some examples may help put things into perspective: the film has no non-diegetic music until it briefly does in a scene that trades consistency for a cheap scare; it hides the face of its killer until it doesn't in an unceremonious scene that puts it front and centre; and it follows its slasher as he slowly but surely stomps his way around the forest without cutting away until it jumps to another angle and makes you question why it held the previous shot for so damn long. In all these instances, the result of the last-minute change of heart simply makes you wonder why the pattern that's been broken was established in the first place, making you doubt every major decision and reevaluate in real time whether it was actually as brave and effective a choice as it initially seemed.

The main instance of this issue can be seen in the final movement, which - in a truly baffling move - shatters the core concept of the picture into a million pieces by shifting the film's perspective to follow the final girl. It then becomes more conventional while also refusing to take the expected route, instead opting to present an extended sequence with minimal suspense and an unsatisfying subversion at its climax (the kind of subversion that doesn't really work in a movie like this). It becomes way too talky and almost entirely inert, revolving around tangentially related dialogue that seems to think it's saying something profound about the slasher genre but is actually saying something so incredibly obvious that it usually just goes without saying (and has likely already occurred to every single fan of this type of film). This final movement really takes the wind out of the feature's sails and significantly dampens its overall impact. It's arguably one of the least effective endings I've ever seen, and it's honestly just as - if not more - boring than the bits in which the baddie does nothing other than wander through the forest for minutes at a time. With a stronger ending, the film would be far better than it ultimately is.

Other, smaller problems include some seriously silly decisions from some characters - including perhaps one of the most idiotic ideas ever to occur to a horror movie victim-to-be (and that's saying something) - and a tendency to frame its action in a repetitive way that's initially intriguing but eventually fairly dull (it mimics a third-person videogame, but never depicts anything more than waking while doing so and cuts to more interesting compositions for the more meaty action; why does it have to feel so restrictive for so long?). There's also the sense that the filmmakers think putting the audience "in the killer's perspective" means putting them "as close to the back of his head as possible", with the picture never really giving us an insight into what's going on in his brain. That's not inherently bad, as it doesn't seem like there's anything in particular rattling around in there (even the violence he inflicts is inconsistent, alternating between being shockingly sadistic and ruthlessly efficient), but the story isn't so much told from his perspective - as the marketing indicates - as it is told over his shoulder. There's still a notable distance from him, and it's not like slashers are shy about putting us in the point of view of their killers - sometimes literally - even if they don't do it as often or as consistently as this.

However, even though this is a very flawed effort, it's still an experience I'd recommend to fans of its genre. It tries to do something unique and it mostly succeeds on that front; its execution lacks refinement, but its concept is assured. There's some truly gnarly, seamlessly depicted violence that's sure to please gore hounds, and the more active segments are suitably compelling. When it boils down to it, it's better than quite a few of the 'Friday The 13th' movies, even if it does sort of feel like a big-budget fan film. It's sometimes boring, but so are most of those; this is just boring with the camera in a different location. It's a solid experimental horror feature which somehow manages to scratch the itch for the sort of straight-forward slasher that's been replaced by post-modern spins on the genre in recent years, even if this technically is the latter and it fumbles its finale quite significantly. It's not great, but it's good.

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.

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!

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.

Comparisons with FT13, TCM, Adam Green's Hatchet, Just Before Dawn n various backwoods 80s slashers is inevitable but this one has plenty of bloody kills n ample amount of tension.

While it has the same old trope.

When the bad guy/monster/evil stuff is down, make sure they r fully down by severing their head or at least their arms but here we again have idiots who shows their back to the killer who is down.

Here we again have the same idiots who rather than putting bullets after bullets in the killer, they go very close to the killer who is down.

In some scenes the camera jus lingers on.

In some scenes we just get to c the killer walk around n hear his footsteps crushing the weeds n dry twigs.

The first kill is offscreen but the rest are bloody mayhem.

The yoga girl dies in the most brutal (ironically in a super hyper extended spine).

As a gym instructor I always tell my clients not to do hyper extension of any joints.

As audiences we are waiting for the killer to pounce on the car or something to come out from the woods. Some solid suspense maintained.

The camera-work supplies the film with unbearable tension level at some scenes.

Another best part is the juxtaposition. The serene n calm forest with birds chirping, animals making their sounds, still n calm lake contrasted with the killer wreaking mayhem.

We're used to the typical slasher-film dynamic - a tragedy that happened many years ago and a group of friends who wanna have some fun while there's a killer stalking them around the woods and waiting to ruin they're weekend, vacation, whatever. Well, actually In a Violent Nature have all this cliche elements, but they're developed in a different way. Basically this movie has no dialogues, only a few moments and 90% of the movie is focused on the killer and seen through his perspective, not from the victims like most horror films, and I think this is an original and bold idea, because no other slasher film did that as much as In a Violent Nature. In the other hand, it makes the movie very tedious and tiring, because it makes you feel like watching a recorded game or something. I think if some scenes were shorter maybe it wouldn't be so tedious to watch. But regardless, if you're a slasher\horror film lover, I think you must watch this movie, but just not expect a good plot and dialogues that catch your attention when you went to watch, because there's none. This was a bold movie for going in a not-typical direction and the death scenes were great for it's brutality and gore - by the way the mountain scene has one of the coolest and most brutal deaths seen in a slasher film before. Another positive point about the movie for me was the photography of it, the colors and the way they were highlighted in every scene were great.

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.

Ok, wow. This is NOT FOR EVERYONE. But I will say I was captivated. I can totally understand why people wouldn't like this but I just gotta say, this was different/novel, beautiful, and vicious....right in my personal wheelhouse.

Long story short, this is a typical slasher movie BUT mostly seen through the perspective of the killer.

The deaths in this are brutal and horrific. If you have a low tolerance for gore do not watch this...but the practical effects and violence were shocking and awesome!

The writing and acting by everyone except the killer were clunky, unnatural, and borderline laughable (even though I don't think that's what they were going for) but I can absolutely forgive it since none of those people or what they say were important (except for laying out the story and motivation). This movie is all about the concept of perspective and the incredibly imaginative gore.....let me explain....

75% of this movie is literally watching the killer walk through the woods hunting down his victims. I know, I know, doesn't sound interesting but I was totally into it!

At times it drags and becomes monotonous but I actually felt like this was an arguably "relaxing" horror film to watch. The cinematography was beautiful, serene, and calming. This is a scary movie that IS NOT scary.... I know, weird, right? But because you're following the killer the whole time, there's no tension, just calming nature strolls followed by bouts of extreme, unadulterated violence. Very awesome and novel if you ask me.

Went in not expecting much and that's exactly what I got. Probably 70% of this movie is the same shot repeated over and over again, that shot being us watching the killer from behind walking through the woods at great length with the sound of leaves crunching underfoot.

I'm convinced the storyboard for this movie, on paper, goes something like this: Walk. Kill. Walk. Kill. Walk. Kill. Walk Kill...

Though the walking is about 5 times the length of a kill and save for maybe 2 kills offering a few seconds of goofy fun, the rest are boring.

Other than that the story is incredibly cheesy/lame/unoriginal, the dialogue and acting is entirely subpar, and there's many awkwardly executed scenes. A few long, not convincing, awkward pauses in dialogue or actions, as well as some weird almost confusing sound design at times made it clear pretty early that the story and acting aren't going to be where the movie shines, unfortunately though there was nowhere it shined.

I did my best to not fall asleep while watching but toward the end I really couldn't be bothered to care at all and found myself starting to drift. Can't try and pass off a low budget thriller as unique or original in this case, it's really just a bore.

I love horror films of all kinds and even the worst of b rated films. But this was absolutely the worst. The trailer was like the 70s where scenes are dubbed together to make it dramatic and suspenseful looking. 90 minutes run time felt like 5 hours. 45 minutes is just wannabe J Voorhees gimmicked slasher walking through the woods with camera behind him and overly dramatic footsteps that apparently NO ONE could hear as he walks up on them. 3 kills that were viable as "new" like trailer claims. The other three were bunk and ridoculous even in a campy way. The crickets and bullfrogs for background sound. This actually had ALL the tools and presentation for a F13th style slasher that COULD have been cool but absolutely wasnt. Save your money, and more importantly your time. 90 minutes of post TBell bathroom pain is less disappointing than this drivel. VERY dosappointing in EVERY way imaginable. Even for an indie, low budget, and even for a Shudder production. Actually mad leaving theater just now. But laughing mad at how I got duped by one of the oldest horror movie tricks of all time and suckered into seeing this abominable waste of film, money and ideas.

When I heard about this film around 6 months ago I was really excited. A new concept horror! It was only after reading a bunch of the reviews about how 'painfully slow' it was and one particular person even said it was like 'watching scenery go by on a treadmill' that I started having doubts.

I watched this last night and thought it was BRILLIANT. Yes, some parts are intentionally quiet and slow, with smash cuts of the zombie walking through different beautiful scenery... but these counteract the very deliberately drawn out, intense and HORRIFYING kill scenes (the camera NEVER pans away). I thought the juxtaposition was excellent. I held my breath after the first kill and don't think I let it go until the end of the movie.

The dialogue isn't the best but gets the gist of the zombies backstory across enough for you to be invested, and the movie follows the same 'final girl' trope of most classic slashers... what makes this one stand out for me is the viewpoint and the deliberate pace.

There were some particularly bloody murder scenes that'll haunt me for a while after this one.

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.

60% of the film involves watching the back of a guy walking through the woods.

35% of the film involves watching really bad actors do things that make zero sense.

20% of the film involves outrageously overdone scenes of inexplicable violence.

15% of the film is listening to stupid stories that make no sense, particularly the last one.

That doesn't add up to 100% because these things overlap.

It's a garbage movie with no plot, terrible acting, terrible delivery, terrible effects, pointless and over-the-top violence, and it ends with nothing making sense and nothing having been said.

No story, no point, no conclusion, no content. Just garbage.

We all know the plot: Late Teens/Early Adults go into the woods for a weekend away, and they either stumble across or awaken a killer/supernatural killer. And this movie doesn't deviate from this basic plot.

What it does offer is the perspective of said supernatural killer. And how this changes the perspective of the film. First, it's much quieter as there is no need for jump scares, loud crashes of music and noise to announce, "HE'S HERE!" We see as the killer approaches. Second, the tropes of the stupid Teenager is seen somewhat differently as the killer watches them interact. Somehow the group of ragtag people that would never be together given the disparate nature of their personalities is seen for what it is: they are all just mean and bullies. Ha! All of them, even the "nice one(s)" just let this stuff continue. (I know that this is generally obvious in any slasher film, but watching most of these characters from the outside just highlights the "WTF?!" qualities of these characters.) Third, there is actually some reason for why the supernatural killer became this way that is more straightforward. Here it is! Here's the explanation! Stop being stupid!

I appreciated the persepctive shift that allows for this slower process and more insight to the "mindless" killing that is standard for slasher films. If you are expecting all the tropes of jump scares and such, you will be disappointed. If you love the culture of horror and slasher films, this will be appreciated for the expansion of insight and perspective that this will provide.