I love it when movies (particularly horror films) flip things and make them (mostly) original. In A Violent Nature really makes some choices, and I am here for all of them.
Somewhere deep in the woods, voices can be heard. They are talking about an unseen necklace seemingly randomly placed in the woods. One of the voices remarks that if it is here, it must have some meaning, some purpose. The voices move away as the camera slowly pans over to see the necklace, a locket, resting on a length of pipe. One of the voices calls back asking if Troy is coming or not. A hand reaches into the frame and grabs the necklace and footsteps can be heard walking further away. Moments later, the pipe starts to move. The dirt beneath it can be seen moving as well. A few moments later the pipe falls to the ground and a body pulls itself out of the dirt and leaves. It takes a few seconds to gather its bearings and then begins walking away slowly. For a long time, the only thing seen is this semi-rotting, dirt-encrusted, large person walking through the woods. Nothing can be heard except footsteps, and the sounds of nature filling the forest.
This is the opening moments of this film, and it makes one hell of a first impression. I’m not going to describe the film further other than to say that it is truly like nothing I have ever seen before. I’m not saying that it is some sort of life-changing movie that made me cry or question my own existence or something, but damn if it wasn’t great.
As I was watching In A Violent Nature I kept noticing that I was getting more and more anxious about the characters. Not that I had any attachment to them personally, but the way in which the film is shot, and produced, made you feel like a killer. Probably fifty percent of the film is just long-take, single-camera shots of the killer slowly walking through the woods in search of his locket and his next victim. It’s quiet, and deliberately puts the viewer on edge. Again, I am not sure I have ever seen a film like this one.
The lack of music and dialog though the majority of the film was so foreign to me as a horror movie guy that I had to look up if I got a back “transfer” of the film or something. Nope. It was intentional. All of it. The director wants the audience to feel like they are or are with the killer. The only dialog you hear the entire film is when the killer gets close enough to the next victim, or victims. When he moves close it’s as though you are hearing what he would. As they run away, in abject terror, you hear their voices and screams trail off in the distance. It’s a very effective way of conveying this sense of isolation. It’s unnerving.
The entire length of the film is a tight ninety minutes. It never over-stays its welcome and at no point in its runtime was there ever any semblance of rest. The killer is pursuing someone the entire time. Which I only realized as I am typing this, is the reason the ending actually works better than I initially thought. Much like Summer of 84, the ending kinda sticks with you. I won’t spoil it, but I’ll say it seems that it is left a bit open for interpretation. At least, that’s how I see it.
In a Violent Nature doesn’t have a huge “kill count” but most of the deaths seen in this film are brutal. The lack of a score or soundtrack leaves the viewer able to hear every bone-breaking, blood-spurting, agonizing moment unfiltered. It’s… rough. The audience creates their own inner tension for every stalking scene. No one in the film is safe and the viewer is there to feel like they are participating, like it or not. I can’t recommend this film anymore. It is easily the shining star of this year’s marathon and caps off a year that was filled with mostly-mid films. What a way to go out, though. I’m pretty sure there is already a sequel in the works, and if it plays out as this one did, I am more than ready.
Comments