Jay Baruchel is usually the guy you see playing the awkward, lovable nerd in big-budget comedies. But in 2019, he decided to break everyone’s brain by directing a slasher that feels less like a popcorn flick and more like a panic attack. The random acts of violence movie—officially titled Random Acts of Violence—is a brutal, meta-commentary on the horror genre itself. It’s based on a 2010 one-shot comic by Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray.
Honestly, it’s a tough sit.
The story follows Todd Walkley (played by Jesse Williams), a comic book creator who has hit a massive creative wall. He’s the mind behind Slasherman, a series based on a real-life series of unsolved murders from the 90s. Todd, his girlfriend Kathy, his assistant Aurora, and his publisher Ezra set out on a road trip from Toronto to NYC for Comic-Con. They decide to take a detour through the actual locations where the "Slasherman" killings happened.
Bad move.
As they travel, a copycat killer starts recreating the panels of Todd's comic books in gruesome, real-life detail. It’s not just a "guy in a mask" movie; it’s a deep, messy look at whether creators are responsible for the monsters they put into the world.
The Weird Connection Between Art and Real-World Bloodshed
Most slashers are built to make you cheer when the killer does something "creative." You know how it goes. Freddy Krueger makes a pun, Jason uses a sleeping bag as a weapon, and the audience goes wild. Baruchel hates that. Or, at least, he wants to challenge why we like it. The random acts of violence movie takes all the fun out of the kill. It makes the violence feel heavy, ugly, and fundamentally wrong.
There’s a specific scene involving a "Christmas display" that I won't describe in detail here because it's genuinely upsetting. But the point is clear: Todd sees his drawings as "art" and "commerce," while the killer sees them as a blueprint.
💡 You might also like: Ebonie Smith Movies and TV Shows: The Child Star Who Actually Made It Out Okay
Why the gore feels different here
A lot of horror fans went into this expecting a standard slasher experience. They were disappointed. Instead of a fast-paced hunt, they got a movie that spends a lot of time on Todd’s guilt. He’s basically being told, "You profited off these victims, so now you have to see what that actually looks like."
- The lighting is oppressive. Everything is soaked in neon reds and deep blacks.
- The sound design is wet. You hear everything you don't want to hear.
- The pacing is intentionally jagged. It goes from long, quiet conversations about ethics to 30 seconds of pure, unadulterated chaos.
The movie isn't trying to be your friend. It’s trying to indict you for watching it. It’s meta-horror in the vein of Michael Haneke’s Funny Games, but with more "comic book" aesthetics.
Breaking Down the Cast and Production
Jesse Williams is great here because he doesn't play Todd as a hero. He plays him as an obsessive, slightly arrogant guy who thinks he’s "above" the violence he draws. Jordana Brewster plays Kathy, who is working on a book about the victims of the original Slasherman. She provides the moral compass that Todd lacks. She’s the one reminding the audience that these aren't just characters; they were people with lives and families.
Jay Baruchel isn't just behind the camera; he plays Ezra, the publisher. He brings a bit of that nervous energy he’s known for, but it’s tinged with a darker desperation.
The film was shot in Canada, mostly around the Toronto area, and it has that cold, gritty "Indie Canadian Horror" feel. It’s short. Barely 80 minutes. But it packs more dread into those 80 minutes than most three-hour epics. It premiered at Fantastic Fest in 2019 but didn't hit Shudder until 2020.
The Comic Book Origins
If you've read the original Palmiotti/Gray comic, you'll notice the movie is way darker. The comic is more of a straightforward thriller. Baruchel leaned into the "Grand Guignol" style—a type of theater known for its graphic, naturalistic horror. He wanted to make sure that when someone gets hurt in this movie, you feel the weight of it.
📖 Related: Eazy-E: The Business Genius and Street Legend Most People Get Wrong
What Most People Get Wrong About the Ending
People often complain that the ending feels abrupt. I get it. We are conditioned to want a big final showdown where the hero gets a one-liner and the bad guy dies. That’s not what happens here. Without spoiling the final frames, the ending of the random acts of violence movie is a realization.
It’s about the cycle of trauma.
The killer isn't some supernatural force like Michael Myers. He’s a person. A person who was "inspired" by the media he consumed. By ending the way it does, Baruchel forces the viewer to sit with the consequences of Todd's work. If Todd "wins" in a cool way, it validates the violence. So, the movie refuses to give you that satisfaction.
It’s a polarizing choice. Some people think it’s pretentious. Others think it’s the only honest way to end a movie like this.
Is Random Acts of Violence Actually a Good Movie?
It depends on what you want from your Friday night. If you want a fun slasher to watch with friends while eating pizza, stay away from this. Seriously. It will ruin your night.
But if you’re interested in:
👉 See also: Drunk on You Lyrics: What Luke Bryan Fans Still Get Wrong
- The ethics of true crime obsession
- How creators handle their influence
- Practical effects that look terrifyingly real
- Non-linear storytelling that feels like a fever dream
Then yeah, it’s a must-watch. It’s a 7/10 for casual viewers but probably a 9/10 for hardcore horror nerds who are tired of the same old tropes. It’s mean-spirited on purpose. It wants to make you feel gross for enjoying the genre.
Critical Reception vs. Fan Reality
Critics were generally split. On Rotten Tomatoes, it sits in that "Fresh" but divisive territory. Critics praised the visuals but some found the "violence is bad" message a bit hypocritical since the movie is, well, very violent.
But that's the point. It’s a paradox. You can’t critique screen violence without showing it, but the act of showing it becomes part of the problem. It’s a loop that the movie never tries to escape.
How to Watch and What to Do Next
If you’re ready to dive into the random acts of violence movie, you can usually find it streaming on Shudder or AMC+. It’s also available for digital rental on most platforms like Amazon or Apple.
Before you hit play, keep a few things in mind. This isn't a "background" movie. You need to pay attention to the transitions. Baruchel uses these clever matches between the comic book panels and the live-action shots that tell a story of their own.
Actionable Steps for the Viewer:
- Watch the original comic first: Grab the Random Acts of Violence trade paperback. It’s a quick read and helps you appreciate how much Baruchel changed the tone for the screen.
- Check out the "making of" features: If you get the Blu-ray, the featurette on the practical effects is insane. Seeing how they built the "Christmas" scene will make you respect the craft, even if the scene itself makes you want to barf.
- Pair it with Nightcrawler or Blow Out: If you want a "Media is Evil" marathon, these movies explore similar themes about the voyeuristic nature of capturing tragedy for profit.
- Look for the Easter eggs: There are tons of nods to classic horror posters and comic book culture hidden in Ezra’s office and at the various stops along the road trip.
This movie isn't going to be a cult classic in the way Evil Dead is. Nobody is going to dress up as the Slasherman for Halloween to be "cool." But as a piece of nihilistic, thought-provoking horror, it’s one of the most interesting things to come out of the late 2010s. Just don't say I didn't warn you about the gore. It’s a lot.
Most horror movies want to scare you. This one wants to leave you feeling a little bit guilty for being there in the first place.