Judging from the end monologue , the driver talks about a vicious bear out in those woods. Was it a bear the whole time and the killer was an allegory for it?
shareI think it was left intentionally ambiguous.
Something to stew over, ya know, that being said I’m inclined to lean towards everything happening as it was shown to us.
No i don't think thats what they was trying to say, if that was the case there would've been no plot about the killer wanting his necklace back. I think the point of the story was to say killing is just in some things nature, hence the title of the movie.
shareI took it to be a story that her friend "Bobby" told because no one would believe that he actually encountered and survived an encounter with a homicidal supernatural killer. He too encountered the killer, who went on a spree 30 years ago or whatever, and survived, but he knew no one would believe him if he told the truth, so he told everyone it was a crazy killer bear instead. She's telling our main character this story because maybe she suspects the same thing just happened to her and she wants to reassure her that she, like him, can go through such an experience, survive, and be fine.
But I think the other theories here that "some wild creatures just go on rampages" could also apply, and maybe she was literally talking about a bear and there's no big hidden secret meaning here. It's very ambiguous unfortunately, too much so maybe.