Reviews
[REVIEW] ‘In a Violent Nature’ Nails A Slasher’s Perspective
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.
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.
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.
Most people find that stretching their dollar still barely gets them by in today’s economy. I am very particular about what I spend my spare money on regarding extracurriculars. And no one likes to feel like their money is wasted. Madame Morbid Trolley Tours wasn’t an experience I had been familiar with. Maybe that’s because I’m chronically offline for most of my life. So this leads to the perfect question: in today’s turbulent economy, is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours worth the price? The short answer is unquestionably, yes. But it’s more than just a simple yes.
My wife and I arrived at the designated meeting point 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time. A handful of minutes later, a gorgeous, e-candle-lit trolley pulled up to the side of the road. We were greeted by impeccably on-brand Allison Chase, our tour guide, and trolley driver ‘Mad’ Matt Zaller. The wonderfully cheery duo invited us on the trolley, and the tour was set to begin.
400 Years of Death, Destruction, and Infrastructure
After a welcoming video intro from someone who knows a thing or two about busting ghosts, we set off on the inaugural Madame Morbid Trolley Tour in its ninth year of operation. From the Brooklyn Naval Yard all the way to Dumbo, and more, this tour magnificently chronicles 400 years of history, the good and the bad, expertly. No matter how much you think you may know about Brooklyn history, I can bet there will be something new learned within the first 15 minutes of the tour. From the first-ever plane crash to one of the worst theater fires in history, this tour covers tragedies that the greatest horror writers couldn’t conceive.
The Deadly [Charming] Docent
Allison Chase led the fascinating tour in character from the moment we stepped on the trolley until our departure. But Allison’s character was not forced or fake; you could feel Allison’s passion for not just morbid history, but the accuracy of it. Some of the stories we heard were steeped in historical context, and it was not boring for a single second. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is not your standard full-talking tour. It’s a mixed-media adventure of some of Brooklyn’s darkest moments.
During “downtime” (the times between locations), we were edutained by mini documentaries (that were quite funny). Some of the “downtime” was filled with traffic trivia (I won a needle pen!). And other times were show-and-tell-like, with objects passed around for us to examine. But there was never a moment of silence that wasn’t purposeful. All in all, Allison’s knowledge and passion shone like the luminosity of a full moon.
Is Madame Morbid Trolley Tours Worth It?
The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour was not just a fun night out for my wife and me, but it was a delightfully dark night of edutainment. It should also be noted that ‘Mad’ Matt’s driving skills were fantastic. There was a time when I had become enamored with how Matt handled the narrow streets of Brooklyn before realizing that I needed to refocus my attention on Allison. The Madame Morbid Trolley Tour is an exceptionally fun evening of horror and history that will make you think twice next time you walk down the streets of Brooklyn. It is worth the money, and then some. There’s no better activity for a cold, dark October night than the Madame Morbid Trolley Tour.
For more information on Madame Morbid Trolley Tours, and to get your tickets, click here!
I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I should have watched the Stephen King adaptation Cujo a million years ago. First of all, I was a voracious King reader in middle school. The other thing I was obsessed with during those years was Friends. You know, the show that hinges a major episode’s subplot on Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) watching Cujo for the first time. Whatever the reason was, I never got around to it, but I’m rectifying that oversight now.
What is Cujo About?
Cujo tells a relatively simple story. Donna Trenton’s (Dee Wallace) a housewife who’s cheating on her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) with local handyman Steve (Christopher Stone). There’s no accounting for taste, because Vic is 10 times hotter and Steve doesn’t own a bed frame. Look, Donna. I know Vic has that awful David Hasselhoff hair, but I promise the 1980s will end sooner or later. It’ll be OK.
Donna’s attempted termination of this affair ultimately leads to its discovery. Amid this drama, her car breaks down at a mechanic’s isolated farmhouse, trapping her and her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro). You see, the mechanic’s dog, Cujo, freshly christened with rabies, is patrolling the area and attacking everything in sight.
Dee Wallace Is Cujo’s Not-So-Secret Weapon
It would be impossible to start a worthwhile review of Cujo without praising Dee Wallace. The woman is a genre icon, naturally. Think about this: She had only appeared in seven theatrical movies before starring in Cujo. Four of those movies are The Stepford Wives, The Hills Have Eyes, E.T., and The Howling. But this woman didn’t become an icon simply by accidentally stumbling into some iconic titles. She is simply terrific as Donna, using her darting eyes and taut expression to deliver oodles of subtext. You instantly get the sense of how trapped she feels by marriage and motherhood without her uttering a single word.
A good performance is vital, here. Because there’s a hell of a lot of drama to get through before she’s trapped in that damn car. But Wallace instantly shoves you into Donna’s perspective, whether you like it or not. This makes it all the more potent when she is menaced by Cujo. Her desperate attempts for survival, also impeccably performed, have true weight because she seems like a real person. She is also given an incredible scene partner in Danny Pintauro. The future Who’s the Boss? star, who was only six when shooting Cujo, has a perfect everychild quality. His innocence heightens the peril. But so does that fact that he is just as irritating as every six-year-old you’ve ever met.
This movie truly captures how annoying it must be to be stuck in a life-and-death situation with a child. This is a compliment, I swear! Donna is worn down by every aspect of the situation, including her own son’s inability to cope with it. And this ratchets up the tension even further, to an almost unbearable degree.
Cujo Is a Mixed Bag, But Worthwhile Overall
The movie doesn’t work if Cujo himself doesn’t work, and at first I was real worried that he wouldn’t. In the first half, the St. Bernards that play Cujo onscreen are often shown to be wagging their tails in delight. Which kind of undercuts the reality of the situation, I’d say. But the editing and the special effects step in to fix what animal training couldn’t. The attack scenes in the second half are constructed with quick cuts that never let you get too much purchase. It’s a good approach for keeping viewers off-kilter.
Also, Cujo becomes less and less recognizable as a cuddly canine the further the movie gets. It’s a simple trick, really. He ends up getting coated with more and more slime. Saliva, pus, blood, and what have you. This is good for making him feel like a true movie monster. Plus, it’s a good mirror for the sliminess inside the car as it gets covered in sweat, blood, and grime.
The second half of the movie ultimately works like gangbusters. It’s a shame that Cujo is too cowardly to get Donna and Tad in the car before the halfway point. This decision is somewhat faithful to the book’s structure as I remember it. However, it diminishes the weight of the long days that they spend in the car. We really need to feel that crushing stretch of time, and we don’t. When Tad is suffering from dehydration, it’s not a gut punch. Honestly, I just found myself asking, “Already?” It’s good that they gave the movie a happier ending, because the classic grimdark Stephen King finale wouldn’t have landed.
Is Cujo Worth Watching in 2026?
At the end of the day, Cujo is a solid movie and I’m glad I finally watched it. However, it’s not such a stone-cold classic that I’m not at least a little intrigued by that upcoming Netflix remake…
