Directed By Osgood Perkins

Starring – Tatiana Maslany, Rossif Sutherland, Claire Friensen

The Plot – A romantic anniversary trip to a secluded cabin turns sinister when a dark presence reveals itself, forcing a couple (Maslany, Sutherland) to confront the property’s haunting past.

Rated R for some violent content/gore, adult language, and some sexual references.

Keeper – Official Final Trailer (2025) Tatiana Maslany

POSITIVES

Being that this is an Osgood Perkins film, you can expect nothing short of mesmerizing direction in the experience, and while the script surrounding the auteur’s broad strokes constantly undercuts his own creative efforts, there’s plenty of proof in the proverbial pudding that Perkins plunges into a nightmare of psychological vulnerabilities, on account of the unique ways that he conjures reality into a plethora of the movie’s thematic impulses. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that Perkins has merely been commanding films for just over a decade, as his unique touches pertaining towards off center framing, long and lingering persistence on shadows, and immaculate lighting schemes, truly materialize an atmospheric uneasiness that speaks volumes towards Liz’s dreaded isolation as a new girlfriend brought into a world of assorted dark histories, with a variety of off-beat events and startling imagery lacking context that really drives you to question if this woman is losing it mentally, or if what she’s seeing uncovers something darker and deadlier than anything typically of their world. Perkins’ desire to openly embrace the supernatural is not only something that has continuously drove the variety of his previous films, but here conjures an eerie essence of inescapability to the intimately desolate cast of characters, as well as the bump in the night mysteries that persist frantically within this coldly damp and confrontational household, and while I unfortunately figured out the major mystery quite early in the engagement, the context surrounding matters is what ultimately drove speculation, leading to an all-out third act climax that finally feels like the film has conjured some meaningful momentum for itself, albeit right before the film wraps its 94-minute runtime. During this section, we not only receive clarity in answers (Even as it unintentionally crafts twice as many questions in resolving such), but we also come to realize that Perkins is combining two of his favorite subgenres within horror, psychological and supernatural, subscribing to more of the batshit antics that are at the very least memorable, even if not entirely satisfying for audiences involved, and with a pitch perfect song choice of Elvin Bishop’s 70’s ballad “Fooled Around and Fell in Love”, the production utilizes the biting irony of personality that it never found in the consistency of the screenplay, conveying insight into the potential of a film that we could’ve gotten, but unfortunately taste the same kind of tragedy as the doomed lovers involved in the film. Speaking of those characters, the performances are quite good between Tatiana Maslany and Rossif Sutherland, even as the flaws of characterization unintentionally seek to condemn the emotional gravitas that they bring to the film. Maslany toes a tightrope of psychological dexterity, particularly as a result of her character’s inability to grasp the meaning behind the surreal imagery that she’s continuously experiencing, all made tangibly evident by her manic unraveling that feels like it pushes the limits excessively with each dire moment. Sutherland’s turn is a little less demanding energetically than Maslany’s, but the immense responsibility of crafting ambiguity to the morality of the character that falls squarely on his broad shoulders, proves him perfect for the role, especially as Rossif dabbles between the sincere sensitivity of initial interactions, with tediously taxing responses that serve as a kink in the armor of the too good to be true kind of boyfriend.

NEGATIVES

If you’ve noticed my lack of praises for the screenplay, it probably falls on the unfortunate decision of Perkins outsourcing the screenwriting rights to Nick Lepard, and while combining creativity isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I think it’s Lepard’s inexperience that overwhelmed him in the execution of this script, crafting a grave distancing to the engaging of the audience, which continuously has this film fighting an uphill battle to maintain investments. For starters, the film is cloaked in this overlapping mystery whose themes serve as the key to unlocking the bigger picture, and considering it’s telegraphed tragically in an opening sequence that bares more transparency than Lepard was expecting, it becomes tediously frustrating how the movie attempts to sell it off as this earth-shattering revelation, come third act, especially considering by that point you’re so exhausted from these uncompelling characters that you feel checked out long before the film reaches its best moments. This is because of the intentionally awful dialogue that Lepard supplants to these characters, which is not only meant to inspire the kind of humorous underlining that is typical in most Perkins films, but also to enrich the lack of kinetic chemistry between leads that preheats the oven of their inevitable confrontation, and it becomes a problem in feeling any semblance of empathy for Liz, especially considering she comes across as unfairly snobbish towards the occasional outsider moving into frame. Without a source to invest our sympathies towards, it entirely compromises the importance of what’s being dissected, but also conveys the heavy-handed obviousness of the exploits, which are explored in the most surface level shallow and obvious ways that you would expect from a film pertaining to such, adding even more heaviness to an already pacing-plagued consistency that makes this surprisingly boring for a slow-burn director whom I’ve previously been fully engrossed in, every step of the way. While there’s clearly enough here to make one fascinating short film encroaching on a forty minute runtime, I think an hour and a half stretches the material towards prolonging some of the most simple and isolated moments to Liz’s speculative curiosity, with nothing in the way of meaningful momentum garnered from scene to scene, throughout the opening hour, that could’ve at least frightened audiences into thinking that they’re having a good time. This is where the film really gets ugly, as its cheaply manufactured scares into the randomly inexplainable imagery lacking context isn’t dressed up with any kind of prolonged emphasis or ensuing dread to make it stand out as unnervingly effective in the digestion of the audience, instead subscribing to more of the strange randomness that works in better Perkins films featuring a superior story, but can’t find a compelling angle of insight here. Because of such, “Keeper” feels like it targets easily frightened Tik Tok users who find these artificially manufactured videos on the app digestibly chilling and believable, instead of failing to capitalize on any semblance of the thick atmosphere elicited in Perkins uncomfortable direction, and it leaves the periodic pay-offs feeling so void of palpable tension or suspense, as a result of its lacking creativity, making me wish that Perkins took more initiative on the creativity of the film, especially considering his absence can be felt in every attempted fright. Finally, most of the production is legitimately passable for a feature length presentation, however the limitations of its 6 million dollar budget feels glaringly evident in the artificially rendered designs of most of its supernatural entities, in turn completely wiping away the imposing effectiveness of its gruesomely bizarre detail. The best kind of C.G can suspend any semblance of disbelief to the interpretation, but the worst can glaringly isolate the artificialities of its lack of tangibility, leaving no kind of internalized response to what I was witnessing, and even worse making an Osgood Perkins film feel cheap in the most laughably distracting ways imaginable.

OVERALL
“Keeper” is the rare overwhelming miss from Osgood Perkins, and one that is not only void of any emotional undercurrent, connective clarity, or focusing conviction to its tale of toxicity, but also that familiar underlining Perkins humor that can find frenzy in even the most overly of bizarre engagements. While the film is still directed expertly from the horror auteur, with an atmospheric air of uneasiness in the isolated dread of two lovers, it’s ultimately and unfortunately an undercooked cake with a frozen center at its core, and one whose singular title conveys a hilarious irony towards a film that should be abandoned at all costs.

My Grade: 4.5 or F