Why ‘In a Violent Nature’ Doesn’t Need a Sequel
In one regard, In a Violent Nature is one of the most unusual horror films in recent memory. So maybe it’s no surprise a sequel has been announced. But while endless sequels are part of the fun of slasher series, In a Violent Nature isn’t the sort of story that needs a follow-up.
‘In a Violent Nature’ has a nod to a famous horror sequel
From a storytelling perspective, In a Violent Nature is pedestrian. It’s the tale of a killer who rises from the grave, slaughters some teenagers, and gets defeated. The film doesn’t even try to hide how derivative it is. The film has some geeky homages to earlier slasher movies like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Friday the 13th Part 2 just to let genre fans know the filmmakers know exactly what they are doing.
The one aspect of In a Violent Nature that feels novel is its pacing. The sequences are excessively slow, much like certain arthouse films that try for realism. It’s a bizarre choice. Why give a film with a trashy, midnight movie storyline the same style as a French realist classic like Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles?
‘In a Violent Nature’ doesn’t live up to the standard of cheap horror sequels
Of course, a novel mix of subject and style could make compelling art. However, that’s not what happens here. The deliberate pacing makes many scenes feel needlessly long and destroys any suspense. The best horror films scare people into averting their gaze from the screen. This one will make you avert your gaze to have a nice nap.
Slowburn horror films are great. Tacky gore fests are great (if you are in the right mood). However, combining the two leads to some tonal dissonance and a tedious watch. In a Violent Nature has pleased critics with its style-over-substance approach. However, your average horror fan will get more enjoyment from any cheap 1980s slasher sequel available on streaming. At least those movies have some nostalgia value.
What the director of ‘In a Violent Nature’ was going for
During a 2024 interview with USA Today, director Chris Nash explained what he was thinking when he directed In a Violent Nature. “We always wanted to treat this almost like a nature documentary,” he said. “It’s lulling you into a sense (that) the danger isn’t quite there.
“When you see tourists getting really close to bears, they’re just like, ‘Oh, no, look, it’s not doing anything. It’s fine,'” he added. “And then all of a sudden, the bear just turns around and charges at you. You’re way too defenseless and you just have no idea that they’re capable of this much power and brutality. Not to besmirch bears, they’re great, but (we wanted) that kind of design with Johnny, of being an animal in the woods.”
Nash didn’t want to regurgitate slasher film cliches. “Once you learn certain magic tricks, they’re just not that much fun anymore,” he said. “We didn’t want a whole bunch of throat slashes or anything like that.”
“I always want to see things that I haven’t seen before on screen,” Nash explained. “So it’s a selfish thing just to see if like, ‘Oh, man, I wonder if we can actually make this work?'”
In a Violent Nature did create something new — just not something that anyone needed.
