In a Violent Nature

An experiment doesn’t need to have an explicit goal, but I’m still left wondering what writer/director Chris Nash hoped to accomplish with In a Violent Nature. Slasher movies are categorically shallow affairs, and framing one from the killer’s perspective doesn’t add depth, nor do its costs (like the eradication of suspense) outweigh its benefits (of which I’m struggling to name a single one). Its approach is novel, I’ll give it that, but only insofar as it allows itself to be. Given how much runtime is devoted to lengthy tracking shots of its hulking antihero trudging through the woods (which explicitly quote Gus Van Sant but feel more like a video game), its frequent need to diverge from that spartan POV for the sake of visual variety or narrative convenience are conspicuous; when the work is defined by a clearly identifiable constraint, any deviation can feel like cheating. Other efforts towards novelty, such as its overtures to gore hounds, are lopsided (a cartoonishly grotesque hook-and-chain kill and a weirdly uninspired use of an antique log splitter stand out among the otherwise unremarkable violence), and its final rumination on the natural world’s fundamental danger is half-baked and unsatisfying. Slasher devotees can certainly do worse, but In a Violent Nature is less a reinvention of the genre than an unsuccessful mashup with slow cinema.