Summary
Although Shudder’sIn A Violent Natureis as great as Stephen King claims, the unconventional slasher is still struggling to connect with audiences. Horror legend Stephen King frequently takes to social media to recommend the latest movies and shows that he is watching. While the author has co-signed all manner of media over the years, unsurprisingly, he has a particularly developed taste for horror. King’s recommendations carry a lot of clout thanks to the author’s decades of success as a horror writer, but not all the movies and shows that he shouts out are ones adored by general audiences.
When King said that2024’s brutal slasherIn A Violent Naturewas worth a watch, his claim contrasted with what a lot of viewers have said about the movie on Rotten Tomatoes.In A Violent Natureis an experimental slasher movie that messes with the sub-genre’s familiar conventionsas the entire story takes place from the point of view of its undead killer. ByIn A Violent Nature’s ending, the slasher begins to resemble an ordinary horror movie. However, for most of its runtime, it is a dreamy, meditatively paced nature walk on film. These qualities both led King to praise the movie, while causing some viewers to reject it.
Stephen King Is Right About In A Violent Nature - Why It’s A Very Good New Slasher Movie
Stephen King Raved About In A Violent Nature’s Gory Story
In commentsonX, King commended the movie’s daring pacing, callingIn A Violent Nature“Leisurely, almost languorous” before noting that “When the blood flows, it flows in buckets.” This striking contrast resulted inIn A Violent Natureearning an 85% approval rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, with many reviewers raving about its hypnotic appeal. According to these reviews, the languid pacing and beautiful vistas that make up much of the movie’s runtime make the kills all the more upsetting and terrifying when they arrive.
Critics noted thatIn A Violent Nature’sFriday the 13thinspireddeaths were truly shocking in a way that few horror movies have managed in recent years, with many reviewers crediting the movie’s offbeat tone for its success. If it weren’t for the sleepy stretches of the movie that focus on its killer walking through the woods in lonely silence, the sudden bursts of vivid violence would be nowhere near as impactful.In A Violent Nature’s unique appeal won over King and criticsby successfully combining the hazy ephemeral viewpoint of American indie cinema with an ‘80s slasher story.
Why Has In A Violent Nature Divided Critics & Audiences So Much?
In A Violent Nature’s Slow Pace Isn’t For Everyone
WhileIn A Violent Natureresonated with critics, audiences didn’t agree.The movie currently holds a paltry 45% on the site– highlighting a disconnect between professional reviewers and the general public. WhileIn A Violent NaturesubvertsFriday the 13th’s familiar slasher formula, the movie’s risky approach failed to resonate with many viewers.
The majority ofIn A Violent Nature’s detractors complain that the horror movie is too slow or boring. Since many viewers may have been expecting something akin toFear Street: 1978orFriday the 13th’s 2009 remake, this reaction is understandable.In A Violent Natureis more like a Gus Van Sant or Terrence Malick movie, prioritizing immersion over straightforward storytelling. While this makes for a rewarding viewing experience, it is certainly an unconventional approach for a genre often stereotyped as mindless escapism.
