One of the great things about horror (and there are many) is that it's cyclical. Sub genres will burn bright and hard for a few years before fading into the background and letting somethingelse take centre stage. From found footage, to post Walking Dead zombies to early noughties gorno to elevated horror of the last decade or so. So if there is one strand you are particularly fond of then chances are it'll circle back around at some point (although you may have to wait a couple of decades). Now, it's no secret that horror movies are unfairly sniffed at by some within the film industry as a whole. And within the genre itself, slasher movies are often looked down on a little too, - with many feeling they don't have much artistic merit. That's not an unfair assessment. There often isn't much more to films that revolve around a bunch of teens being picked off one by one by a masked killer. However, their moment in the sun tend to be followed by years in the wilderness. John Carpenter's Halloween kicked off the original slasher craze back in 1978 but it was the Friday 13th series that really led to the glut of 80s stalk'n'slash flicks (of varying quality) that most of us are so fond of. But by the mid 1980s, the slasher was on its way out and it wasn't until Wes Craven's Scream in 1996 that it was thrust back into the mainstream. We had two or three years of glossy teen imitators before it all died down again and for 15 years or so after, hardly a peep. It's tough to pinpoint exactly when the modern slasher revival was officially born but Happy Death Day (2017) and Halloween (2018) are a sound bet, with each inspiring two new styles of the subgenre; the high concept slasher and the legacy slasher. But here we are, 6 years on, having seen three Halloween reboots, two new Scream films and a clutch of sci-fi-horror-comedy capers (Freaky, Totally Killer etc). If you thought it was all starting to feel a little predictable, then Chris Nash's In a Violent Nature is here promising to shake things up a bit.

 

Like most of its slasher peers, the premise is thin enough to write on a post-it note. A group of teens (who else?!) holidaying in the woods, unwittingly awaken a long-dead corpse when they take a locket belonging to his mother from a derelict fire tower. This corpse, a hulking figure reminiscent of Jason Vorhees, wants this particular item back however and begins a slow methodical pursuit, despatching anyone or anything that gets in his way.

 

See, told you it was straightforward. However, although the plot may sound standard, this really isn't what you'd expect on basically every other front. All the elements are there for a trashy nostalgic summer-camp style slasher flick. A woodland setting, a big lake, log cabins, a masked killer, annoying teenagers, alcohol, mindless violence. In a Violent Nature ticks all these boxes and yet, if you go into this expecting a Friday 13th style romp...well, you ain't gonna get it! By the end, some will view it as an intriguing reimagining of a well worn format, whilst others will instinctively rebel against it. Where you land will partly depend on your expectations and how much you can handle watching a killer relentlessly trudge through dense woodland...

 

Not being able to clearly identify what In a Violent Nature is trying to say or what type of a horror film it is will undoubtedly lead to a certain degree of confusion and frustration amongst some viewers. It has been referred to as a a horror-comedy by some. An arthouse horror by others. These are both valid opinions, In a Violent Nature does feel a bit like an attempt at an 'elevation' of the slasher genre and there are also a couple of laugh out loud moments (even if they are reactions to over the top on-screen violence). In many way, it feels like an anti-slasher. The type of end product you'd end up with if Michael Haneke was given a Friday 13th script. Its efforts at deconstructing the tropes and trademarks of this subgenre make for a curious viewing experience. Our teen characters are suitably foolish but Nash's direction means that we never spend much time with them or get to know any of them. But then they're just there to be killed off right? So what does it matter? Well, for some, it will. The same way that some will find the brutal violence (when it does eventually arrive) joyless and pointless, as there is no real traditional build up. There are no jump scares or chase scenes and when the carnage does play out on screen, it is drawn out and unflinchingly gory. But that's ok surely? This is what we sign up for when we sit down to watch a slasher after all. Again, that may not be the case for some viewers. There is no real sense of suspense or score to suggest how we should be feeling and there is a detachment to both events and characters that might rub certain viewers up the wrong way.

 

There is no way of knowing if In a Violent Nature is sending up the slasher subgenre or if it is a genuine attempt to try something new and rock the boat a little. It's possible it wants to do both. Some will love its audacity whilst others will become bored to the point of despondency. We're somewhere in the middle. Yes, it's an impressively bold and assured attempt at something new. Its legacy focused peers feel a tad stale in comparison. But watching a dude walking through a forest over and over and over again does test the patience levels somewhat...