Connect with us

Reviews

[REVIEW] ‘In a Violent Nature’ Nails A Slasher’s Perspective

Published

on

It feels like a lot of horror movies these past few years have been begging a particular question, and In A Violent Nature might be the one that begs it the most: How many more slashers until we feel like we’re back in a slasher film golden age?

Can In a Violent Nature Birth the Next Horror Icon?

How many more iconic designs do you have to render, how many more insane kills that defy biology and physics and human decency before we feel we have a new crop of killers as iconic as Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, and (most importantly to this film) Jason Voorhees? Because, outside of Art the Clown, the simple elegance of In A Violent Nature’s killer Johnny, is the closest I’ve felt to seeing an iconic new killer in theatres. He’s got the design, the backstory, the cool weapon, and the mask. And he is, if nothing else, more brutal than brutal. But those aren’t the only reasons why he and this movie work so well.

For those who haven’t been keeping up with the hype train surrounding this film, In A Violent Nature is your typical slasher, but with one big caveat: it is shot almost entirely from the killer’s perspective. This means eschewing non-diegetic sound, and not going too hard on the killer teleporting around in the woods or being too supernaturally skilled. It’s kept grounded, with the camera continuously following Johnny rather than only giving brief glimpses, granting the audience some intimacy in understanding him. Johnny is an ever-present force, and the unique nature of how he’s shown will be enough to hook many people (no pun intended).

Stunning Visuals and Cinematography in In A Violent Nature

The movie achieves its goal in terms of visuals, with naturalistic lighting and great directing to capture Johnny’s domain and the way he moves through it. Writer-Director Chris Nash and DP Pierce Derks are a natural team, and I should have expected the film to be this good-looking since they were carrying experience over from working on one of my favorite horror films of all time: The Void. On the audio side of things, I still wish the foley work had been a little louder and more pronounced given how gruesome the film gets, with some kills feeling weirdly muted and quiet given what he’s doing to these people. Otherwise, the cinematography passes with flying colors.

Can Johnny Take the Place of Jason Voorhees?

Despite the visual distinction and its fun kills, many will be crying out that In A Violent Nature is just another pastiche of Jason Voorhees traipsing through the trees with an axe, as a few of the disgruntled people leaving my theatre audibly felt. And the cast of mostly stock characters that are annoying by design doesn’t help the allegations. But Johnny is an iteration of the archetype that is explicitly sympathetic, and the film goes to lengths to make you like him and even feel bad for him in the same way many Jason fans feel about their favorite villain.

Advertisement

The movie takes something that would be delegated to a brief scene or to subtext in another slasher and makes it the driving force of the movie: the humanity of the monster gleaming through is at center stage here, with a personality underlying his titular behavior. The monster is equal parts unstoppable death machine and complex human, which I know sounds silly, but is a compelling spin when you’re telling an all too familiar tale.  

Visually, this is communicated in some really fun ways. The juxtaposition of a monster man trudging through a field of daisies is a kind of funny if not endearing presentation. All of the nature documentary shots of our killer slipping through the underbrush and tall grass feel like we’re taking a journey with him rather than witnessing something sinister. That journey just happens to be broken up by a lot of scenes of him mutilating the people who get in his way.

Viewers Looking for Over the Top Kills Will Be Satisfied

In terms of his kills, plenty of moviegoers have been and will be talking about the movie’s most over-the-top fatality. It is nasty, unexpectedly brutal, and the effects for it and every other kill in the movie are unrelentingly good. This is most likely thanks to visual effects supervisor Jeff Bruneel, who worked on Jason X, one of the best in the franchise SFX-wise. In the right light, they even render some pretty disturbing shots.  

But I do suspect there is one major issue people will have with the film, and one I’ve been wrestling with since I left the theatre: the ending. Not the ending ending, but the last 5 minutes or so before the ending. Because (LIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD) after a very suspenseful and well-shot sequence, a character hits the brakes on the film and tells a lengthy anecdote that is, as I interpret it, a metaphor for how we as audiences see slasher villains compared to the reality of the villain in universe.   

While I like the concept, the way it’s delivered will probably end up distracting you from the great suspense the film was building at that moment. Your body is wracked with tension, waiting for a painful ending, but you’re too focused on the story being told to appreciate that tension. The final moments of the film do manage to restore the anxiety somewhat, but the finale’s ability to gut-punch you with genuine fear falters. This is especially a problem when it’s slow enough to drag the film out beyond its ideal pace, as the film’s final half does feel a bit drawn out compared to the brisk pace it begins with.

Advertisement

Why In A Violent Nature Is a Must-Watch Slasher

Coming in hot before we reach the halfway point of the year, In A Violent Nature is first and foremost, a fantastic slasher with a fun little twist. Its ending will certainly divide audiences, but I suspect many like myself will be able to forgive it and enjoy its simple but effective execution (and executions). It might benefit from watching in a packed theatre thanks to the reactions its grotesque kills can elicit, but its streaming release on Shudder will surely make it a staple for the streaming service. Hopefully, as it builds its audience, Johnny will find a place as a staple horror film icon.

Luis Pomales-Diaz is a freelance writer and lover of fantasy, sci-fi, and of course, horror. When he isn't working on a new article or short story, he can usually be found watching schlocky movies and forgotten television shows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Film Fests

Overlook Film Festival: ‘Hokum’ Review

Published

on

No way it’s the horror of 2026, but Hokum could be this year’s most solid “welcome to the big leagues, kid” horror. It’s a pill that’s got the potential to draw in new horror fans, but has enough flavor to satisfy a veteran for 101 minutes. Damian McCarthy definitely learned to polish up his idea of a nightmare from Caveat (2020), to Oddity (2024), to his best feature yet. Literally, sort of. With a single watch of each under my belt… Hokum has the same theme and tone as the previous two, just waxed and remixed. I’m not mad at it, though.

Hokum That Bridges Indie and Mainstream Appeal

Even the freaks like us who live in the underground horror tunnels can understand the public’s genre fatigue. I agree- it can seem like all these remakes and re-hashes are seriously weighing down blockbuster horror these days. The good indie stuff gets looked over, but McCarthy’s most recent film is a decent little in-between. It won’t bother you with a high cinema monologue, but it knows how to make you cringe, and will lock you in a dusty room with it.

It’s vague in exposition, not that a simple idea like this really needs to be super fleshed out. It stars Severance’s Adam Scott as Ohm Bauman, a famous Yankee novelist, a guy who grieves, and a big jerk. He arrives at a boutique Irish inn to scatter the ashes of his parents, and finish the last book in his trilogy. The challenge of writing an asshole lead that still has to convince the audience to root for them is damn refreshing. Scott’s performance holds it up too. He’s got a great jerk-face even without dialogue. He’s easy to pity, though- somewhere between Paul Sheldon from Misery, and a real life Stephen King, who shares the suspiciously balanced atmosphere that drove Jack Torrence nuts in The Shining.

Familiar Horror Influences with a Refined Execution

McCarthy borrows a lot from those two, and probably a catalog of blockbuster peek-a-boo scary movies. The reason Hokum is a good challenge for the horror gateway, is that it doesn’t try too hard to “elevate” (it does, though only a little) the genre. It listens and learns from its elders to complete the haunted hotel play-by-play. Not a repeat, but a re-do of the things that work for paranormal and folk horror. The aspect that Hokum brings home is the solid polycule made of production design, sound mixing, and cinematography. A happy, creepy home of cobwebs and jump scares.

The only hotel staff spared from Ohm’s terrible attitude is Fiona. When he learns she’s gone missing after a Halloween party he was famously blackout drunk for, he feels a responsibility to return the kindness and effort she had shown him. The last person to speak to Fiona was local kooky guy, Jerry (David Wilmot). His local status is confirmed by Ohm after Jerry claims Fiona is most likely dead in the honeymoon suite… because her ghost approached him and told him so. Jerry might be crazy, but Ohm has nothing to live for, apparently. Ohm agrees to investigate the suite that the hotel staff keep locked and out of service. It’s haunted by a witch, they say. Obviously.

Advertisement

Production Design and Sound Craft a Claustrophobic Nightmare

The suite, and the source of Hokum’s nightmares, is stunning work in the macabre department. Despite my distaste for them, it really is a playground for jump scares. Lighting and sound design do some real respectable heavy lifting that the viewer is forced (complimentary) to sit through. My personal playground, though, would be the dumbwaiter. The last time I had that much fun with one of those was when lowering Danny into the den of lizard aliens in Zathura (2005). Hokum’s dumbwaiter plays as much of a role as Adam Scott does in his.

Besides the horrors that persist in it, the honeymoon suite really comes alive with the one or two Resident Evil-esque puzzles in order to reach the meat of the mystery. A super engaging focus from cinematographer Colm Hogan to use frame ratio, and other visual camera tricks to induce the claustrophobia of the epicenter of scares. Bring back the dumbwaiter please.

Where Hokum Falls Short

What doesn’t work is excusable. The thin background information on Ohm’s trauma presents itself too often through a jump scare/flashback cocktail. Did this movie need to be 101 minutes, or could it have been 90? Did the viewer need to understand the weight of Ohm’s undesirable childhood? Not to this degree. I think these moments also risk confusion as to what supernatural thing we’re dealing with at the moment: the witch of the honeymoon suite, Fiona’s ghost, or the lasting haunt of Ohm’s mother’s tragic death? The film takes the “less is more” rule at about 70%- not awesome, but a passing grade, no doubt.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Reviews

‘2001 Maniacs’ Is Spring Break…For Racists?!

Published

on

One of the most entertaining aspects of horror is its subgenres. Zombie films have an ever-branching group of sub-subgenres, as do slashers and paranormal films. It’s honestly exhausting to try to classify some of these films. Hell, my favorite bigfoot film, Night of the Demon, is a cryptid slasher film! Who knew that the slasher subgenre would ever have a cryptid branch to it?! But the straight-to-DVD times of the mid-aughts brought a series of weird slasher-ish films to the shelves of Walmart and FYE’s across the United States. One of those films that caught my eye (at too young an age) was a genuinely weird, trailer park, splatterpunk remake called 2001 Maniacs. (Would this technically fall under the Hellbilly slasher subgenre?)

What Is 2001 Maniacs About?

Anderson Lee (Jay Gillespie), Corey Jones (Matthew Carey), and Nelson Elliot (Dylan Edrington) are three college kids on their way to Daytona for Spring Break. As their college graduation looms, or lack of graduation, they want to go out with a bang. Literally. A detour leads the three and two other groups into the overly cheery town of Pleasant Valley. But this stuck-in-their-ways town has danger lurking beneath it. The town’s mayor, George W. Buckman (Robert Englund), who dons a Confederate flag eye patch, welcomes the eight travelers in with open arms. And just like that, the Guts n’ Glory festival is set to begin! Though who will make it out alive, and who will get turned into tonight’s pot roast?

A Movie that Shares Some Odd Company

I’ll be completely honest. I haven’t watched this movie in over a decade. There was a time in my life when I was hellbent on finding the most messed-up movies I could. As my watchlist grew, so did my desensitization. Movies like this, Freakshow (which proudly boasted it was banned in 47 countries), August Underground, and The Girl Next Door filled out my formative film-viewing years. While I can understand why some of these disgusting movies were made, some completely befuddled me as to why they were even made. Out of all of these films, 2001 Maniacs stuck in my head as the most perplexing of the bunch.

Writers Tim Sullivan and Chris Kobin, with direction from Tim Sullivan, are very competent voices in horror. They co-wrote Driftwood together, which, while not amazing, is better than the reviews suggest. Their work on Snoop Dogg’s Hood of Horror resulted in a great anthology film that gets overlooked in most conversations about anthologies. And Tim Sullivan wrote/directed the second-best segment in Chillerama, “I was a Teenage Werebear”. So, why this movie? Why remake Herschell Gordon Lewis’s just as perplexing Two Thousand Maniacs!?

2001 Maniacs’ Surprising Connection to Cabin Fever

Quick aside, since we’re also covering Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever this month. What’s interesting is that this film stars Giuseppe Andrews as Harper Alexander (who reprises his role of Deputy Winston in Cabin Fever 2). And towards the beginning of this film, Eli Roth reprises his role of Justin from Cabin Fever. So, Eli Roth exists in this world as his character from Cabin Fever, but Giuseppe Andrews exists as a completely different entity. That’s neither here nor there. Just an interesting observation that implies the flesh-eating disease also exists within this world. What are the odds? As much as I despise Eli Roth, it would have been fascinating to see this group of characters battle Confederate ghosts AND a flesh-eating disease.

Advertisement

Okay, where were we?

The Incredibly Shaky Acting in 2001 Maniacs

Nothing about this film works, except for a handful of practical effects. You can all hate me for what I’m about to say…and that’s okay. Robert Englund and Lin Shaye are not good actors. I will concede that Englud is great as Freddy, and he has worked his way into his legendary status. Beyond that? Not so much. Lin Shaye just…she’s a nepo sister who got in while the getting was good. Her high-pitched, high-energy line readings get old after more than 30 seconds of screentime. It’s easy to see why she has so many fans, and I’m happy that they have thousands of films to watch her in. I just think she took the spot of a potentially better actor. Though you should not mistake what I said as me saying the other actors in this movie are great. Because that is simply untrue. Nearly every scene feels as if the actors are reading their lines from a teleprompter slightly off-screen.

Do the Kills Make it Worth Sitting Through?

“But the point of this movie is the gory kills!” Okay, and? A few of the kills in 2001 Maniacs are fun and inventive, but you have to sit through endless filler until you get there. It gets to a point where this movie’s horniness becomes so over the top that even a hypersexual Joe Bob Briggs fan would become annoyed. You can say that it’s because this movie is a horror comedy, or that it’s supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. And I can come right back and say that there is not a single bit of ‘comedy’ in this movie that works. Vampires Suck is funnier than this. Hell, Disaster Movie is funnier than this.

2001 Maniacs is a Big Skip

2001 Maniacs is the closest I’ve come to a DNF when covering a film for Horror Press. The movie’s blatant racism-played-for-jokes becomes old before it even gets started. Decent practical effects are ruined by mid-aughts digital effects that would make the SciFi Channel cringe. God, how many times can you scream, “The South’s gonna rise again,” before it stops becoming satire and becomes weird? Calling this movie satire would be unfair because there is not a single moment of awareness throughout. Yes, they make Southerners look like pig-screwing dimwits, but it feels like it’s only done to cover their asses.

Do not watch 2001 Maniacs. It is a truly terrible movie. And that’s coming from someone who has watched nearly every SciFi Original, Mongolian Deathworm, and has sat through Verotika eight times.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement