What Keeps You Alive (2018) User Reviews

The most frustrating film I have ever watched.

[addino · 5/10 · 3 February 2019]

I actually enjoyed this film. Loads of tense moments and fun. But it so stupid. So many plot holes, so many stupid decisions. So many time you say to yourself "that just wouldn't happen"

Acting solid. Score good. Some good experimental shots from the director. Just the sheer frustrating stupidity takes what could be a great horror film into a bit of a mess.

Strong Direction but Doesn't Stick the Landing

[AndyP8 · 6/10 · 7 August 2020]

This movie had a lot of potential, but eventually stumbles and falls off a cliff. Starts really strong and has some solid cinematography but some of the characters' decisions will have you face palming pretty hard. It's worth watching, but not revisiting. I'll definitely keep an eye on the director, would be nice to see what he can do with a more solid plot

I Watched This With Different Eyes

[Mehki_Girl · 7/10 · 4 August 2020]

I read the reviews and thought that when I watched this, I would see Jules' actions through the same eyes.

Instead, I saw predator and prey. Abusive sociopaths pick their victims very carefully They pick easy targets to manipulate and gaslight. She groomed her for a year. (You don't kill someone right after insuring them.)

How many times does the accused go back? How many times are they afraid to leave? How many times are they manipulated into believing they are loved? How many are desperate to be loved? How many times do they believe the threats to harm others? And how many times do they pretend nothing is going on?

Yeah, there's some implausible stuff - she knows her spleen is bruised? Really? ( lHey, maybe she's a medic or an EMT?)

The other implausible stuff is no one noticing her injuries (the room was dark), nor did I find her returning to the house to clean up that farfetched. She was trying to call 911. Where else would she go?

Or not screaming out in the boat, her potential murderer was right there in the boat and she already knew she was capable of killing her. Instead, she thought she'd be safer if she got the couple back to the cabin.

This movie amplified the relationship between abuser and the abused, but it really wasnt that far-fetched. I watch a lot of true crime slows and you'd be surprised what people dish out and what people take and for how long.

Running back to the cliff? Yeah that was dumb? Not taking the car and getting the hell out of dodge? Yep (but why don't people being abused just not return home? Whu do they identify with the abuser?) I don't know, because I'm not a victim personality.

The most implausible actions were Jackie's. Did she think she'd get away with it? That the coroner wouldn't be able to see the cuts and bruises were starting to heal on Jules body? That blood wouldn't show up on a porous wooden floor? That no one would hear shooting over the lake? That no one would look for two missing people after one person ends up dead and she has a history of dead people around her?

When Jules left in the car and then came back, wasn't she seekng revenge?

Anyway, I thought it better than the reviews. The acting wasn't too bad and the cinematography was good. Not bad for low budget.

Good Film, Let Down By Plot Holes.

[flowerstardust1979 · 6/10 · 9 January 2020]

This actually kept my attention, where so many movies lately have ended up with me switching off. Yes it was full of plot holes, yes it was frustrating, but at least I got those reactions. And sometimes folks, not every movie has to have an explanation or tie up neatly.

Well acted, well shot, decent story and very dark. I can name 10 movies that I've watched recently and have wasted my time. This WASN'T one of them.

Evil little psychological thriller.

I liked it!

[pillowspam-33469 · 6/10 · 1 September 2020]

Look. it's hard to counter those who say that, the protagonist makes some frustratingly awful decisions (inviting the couple to dinner, GOING BACK!! Etc.) or that the plot was a little contrived. With that said, In my the mark of a good movie is one that keeps you watching. "What keeps you alive' had my" usually multi-tasking self" glued to the screen to see how it would play out. The Scenery, interesting visual shots & solid acting overcame a few very frustrating decisions by the actors & directors. it may not be one i'd watch multiple times. but a good 1 time view that'll keep you engrossed for a short 1h 30.

What a coincidence!

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 18 December 2018]

The night before last, I watched Revenge (2017), in which a young woman is pushed off a cliff by her lover. She somehow survives this ordeal and crawls to safety, where she patches up her wounds. Meanwhile, the lover goes on the hunt for the missing woman, but doesn't account for her lust for life and ability to fight back.

Guess what happens in What Keeps You Alive...

One notable difference between the two films is the main characters' sexuality, the couple in What Keeps You Alive being gay women. The other big difference is that, while Revenge acknowledges its preposterousness and goes all out for excess, What Keeps You Alive fails to realise how incredibly implausible it all is, aiming for realism. The result is a film that is frustratingly dumb, with both women making unbelievably stupid decisions simply to further the plot. None of it works.

Victim Jules (Brittany Allen) does little to help her situation. Instead of using the cover of night to make her escape, she cowers behind a tree and falls asleep until morning. While trying to cross a lake in a boat, pursued by psycho wife Jackie (Hannah Emily Anderson), a neighbour on the shore asks if everything is okay; rather than shout for help, Jules invites the neighbours round for the evening. And when she finally has the upper hand, having stabbed Jackie with a tranquilliser dart, Jules doesn't finish off her attacker (or even incapacitate her): she drives to safety, but then turns around around only to discover that Jackie has woken up and isn't very happy.

After much more stuff and nonsense, the film closes with a totally contrived twist that requires Jackie to act in a very specific manner. Had she logged onto her computer before she does, Jules' posthumous plan for retribution (yes, she very deservedly dies!) would have been a complete waste of time. Had Jackie given herself her injection without watching the video, the end wouldn't have made any sense. The way things actually play out is very contrived. Revenge (2017) might be far-fetched, but at least it is fun and doesn't leave the viewer feeling like they've been taken for a fool.

Meh?

[tasharmartin · 6/10 · 5 August 2020]

Well, I didn't hate this. I also didn't love it. It was entertaining enough to watch through to the end, but I strongly agree with what others said in the sense that there are several moments where you say, "literally nobody would do that, " or, "yeah.... that's impossible. "

I guess I appreciate the idea of this movie and how it didn't take too long to get to the action. I just think this would have been better suited as a Lifetime movie than a Netflix original.

Cardinal Sins of horror

[bjohn-47666 · 4/10 · 29 October 2018]

It's 2018 folks. We can't do "girl running for her life in the woods and making all the wrong moves" anymore. I had hope for this. The trailers promised a hunt with a victim overcoming her attacker. But instead you get a very poor decision making protagonist that continues to deliver herself on a silver platter to the killer. It's a frustrating watch. The cinematography is amazing, acting is pretty solid, the writing.... was the "Scy Fy" team of the movie. So many different directions you could have gone and you went with a sloppy story that leaves no one satisfied.

Check your expectations

[saskiatennert · 7/10 · 3 February 2019]

1. Don't watch the trailer beforehand. 2. Emotionally, it makes sense why Julie does what she does. Something, I think, some <4 star reviewers might not have understood. 3. Listen after the screen goes black at the end.

Overrated!

[kelvynchin · 3/10 · 13 February 2019]

I'm sorry, I just have to write this. Movie is totally overrated. First and foremost, the plot contrivances - it gets really dumb the more it moves along. Victim has psycho drugged and passed out, but doesn't even restrain the killer but leaves her to wake up and torment her again. Drives off when she could have finished the job or at least tie the killer up and call the cops? No, she drives off, and then decides she maybe wants to take revenge on the killer after all. I am a big fan of these kind of movies (revenge thriller, slasher etc) but when the characters are doing really idiotic stuff, it gets to a point when it becomes irritating. Next are the arty directorial choices - which try to be deep but end up being pretentious. For eg, the copious use of Beethoven to portray the inner working of the psycho. It's silly. Next, the directors cuts away from a climactic tussle between killer and victim. I absolutely do not understand choices like that except if it's to (1) save money choreographing a fight scene or (2) to show off how artistic the director is. Unfortunately I believe it's the latter reason. Next, the acting - you read the reviews here and every critic is going gaga over such "terrific, gutwrenching, physical" performance by the actress who plays the victim. But rather, I found her acting not only unconvincing (both when she's being "tortured" or when she acts "heroic"); whats worse, I found her acting rather snivelling as well after a while. And the ending just doesn't work for me. Why kill off the main protagonist? That robs everyone of typical genre pleasures. And how many times does she have to fall off the cliff in this movie? The killer's comeuppance didn't have that kick. And the director juxtaposes her demise with the shooting of the bear , all in slo mo - are we supposed to feel sympathy for her? Or is it a statement about the banal evil in her psychological makeup? Whatever the director meant, it just didn't stick. Finally, I just have to say that this movie is actually a bad movie. I felt extremely irritated at having sat through 90 minutes of this. Go rent "À l'intérieur' ,Haute Tension, or even the latest "halloween" instead. Sorry!

Good film

[edwarddowney-16335 · 8/10 · 27 April 2019]

I cannot understand all the bad hype over this film. I thought it was very good. From now on I'm gonna take these reviews with a pinch of salt and watch the films and make my own mind up..

Pretty boring

[just_in_case · 19 December 2018]

I hate when people post "boring" as their review because it's usually for some fascinating slowburn well told story. I just cant think of any other title more on the nose for this film. This film just doesn't sparkle. Brittany allens heroine is supposed to have some sort of complex personality but its not ever shown or hinted at so she makes these kind bizarre painfully plot driven decisions that make you cringe. The big reveal of the film happens in the first couple minutes and so the rest of the movie is a sort of slow cat and mouse game but neither the cat nor the mouse are particularly interesting. The villains motivation is just so drab. Its a shame I think a couple more scenes spent digesting the character portraits could have made this more watchable instead I was just thankful went it ended.

good small indie thriller

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 19 January 2019]

Jackie brings her wife Jules to her family cottage in Ontario, Canada for their one year anniversary. Her childhood friend Sarah still lives nearby with her husband Daniel. Sarah warns Jules of Jackie's possible involvement with their friend Jenny's death. Jackie appeases Jules' concerns and then pushes her off a cliff.

I really like this movie for the most part. There are a few speed bumps along the way. The first comes with the rowboat race. I didn't really get what Jackie was doing until her crazed thinking starts to show. Logic is not necessary and she's more logical than one can expect. Jules' submissive fear is compelling although I would probably cast Martha MacIsaac in the role instead. Brittany Allen's height makes her less victim-like. There is a tranquilizer dart inserted into the movie at a prominent place. I may have missed it but it needs to be set up in a foreshadowing. It's a big piece of the puzzle and it comes out of nowhere for me. As for returning to the cliff, I figured it'd be more poetic to have Jules push Jackie off the cliff. Hannah Emily Anderson has a nice quiet madness to her performance. I really like the simple indie horror vibe.

Frustratingly stupid choices Spoilers)

[darrylmsmith · 2/10 · 29 August 2018]

I REALLY wanted to like this, but the continued emotional connection to someone trying to kill you just seemed ridiculous. Just leave! You have the jeep. Is she supposed to be "empowered" now that she wants to try to kill Jackie. Just not well thought out. Or earlier on the lake, and you are asked are you OK. Scream out. The neighbors are right there. But instead you go back to the house to take a bath because you have invited the neighbors over. Quote from the film "Stupid but brave". How about just STUPID.

I liked it

[saiken-30341 · 7/10 · 25 May 2019]

This was a very well executed, small budget, thriller. I watched it straight through and I rarely get through a movie in one sitting. 7/10 for the type of film that it is.

One scene out of place, but all togther a gem.

[michaeljpfitzgerald · 7/10 · 6 August 2020]

I only watched this because of the little clip that came up on my streaming service, showcasing a terrifying bit of acting by Hannah Anderson that compelled me to click play. Extremely glad I did.

A lot of movies try to present themselves to you as one sort of film, so that they can shock you by being something different, later on. This movie presents itself as one sort of movie, openly and unabashedly, and then just...expands on that. It blossoms from a genre piece into a broader rumination on the characters involved, getting more and more intimate and intense along the way.

I think you will see the scene that should have come earlier - it presages the finale, and in its current location, is almost a bit of apologetic exposition. I had already predicted what was happening, but the heavy handedness with which it played out stole some of the energy from the moment. By comparison, if it had been shown earlier, it would have quietly foreshadowed a really satisfying piece, in a very subtle way. These things happen.

I adored this. Anderson and Brittany Allen are both tremendous. They and the film both handle the Lesbian relationship with aplomb - it is not sensational, it is not in doubt, being between two women is not responsible for anything that occurs. Exceedingly refreshing.

Well scored {by Brittany Allen!}, well shot, there isn't much unusual to depiction of the story, but the story and the characters do so much heavy lifting, it isn't missed. I'm so glad to have seen this.

A mostly solid film ruined by too much nonsense.

[simonmoon · 3/10 · 25 August 2018]

This movie looks good, and has good acting. The dialogue is tolerable. There are turns in the plot, that are so nonsensical as to bring the whole project down. I'll overlook standard horror/thriller silliness. Like Jules choosing to run through the woods to the cliff after she has tranquilized Jackie. But why would Jules return to the house after driving off in the Jeep ? The Jeep could have been disabled, and Jules could have had a more serious leg injury to explain why she was unable to leave. The return to the house is inexplicable. It makes this movie a bad bad movie.

frustratingly flawed

[stephen_dines-79394 · 6/10 · 24 July 2022]

Lots to like about this. The actors do a decent job, all the peripheral stuff like photography etc are as you would hope. The premise of the movie is a well worn path but still has scope for exploration. The main issue with this though is the high improbability of some of the situations the characters get into. When the victim is left with such obvious chances to escape or turn the tables on their nemesis it simply defies belief that she makes such terrible decisions.

Come On, Now! (Spoilers)

[Ms_White79 · 3/10 · 16 November 2019]

As others have already said, the movie is very difficult to watch because of its implausibility and the stupid decisions the characters make (especially victim and wife to the psycho, Jules). What did it for me was the scene where psycho Jackie is upstairs killing her neighbor and childhood friend. It was at this point that I said to myself, "Self...if Jules is still sitting there when Jackie comes downstairs instead of trying to make a break for it, we're done." Surprise, surprise. After stabbing the neighbor a hundred times, Jules is indeed just sitting on the couch hyperventilating. I'm a woman of my word, so I turned off the movie with 40 more minutes to go. I gave it a shot, but I have a very low tolerance for stupidity.

Good thriller little long but decent

[bhester0806 · 6/10 · 1 August 2022]

Your average revenge thriller, with a few good twist and turns, drug on a little but the imagery and pay off at the end more than takes care of it so more than worth it.

You want the protagonist to die

[ldnuss · 1/10 · 29 June 2019]

This movie is one train wreck after another where you can't even root for Jules, the protagonist, because she doesn't help herself. Jules continuously puts herself in harms way, making the audience push for her to finally be offed by her wife Jackie. Jules, just die already!

Not boring!!!! 7.5

[ginjaninja-43907 · 8/10 · 14 February 2019]

I dont know what all if these people watch that are hyper critical of this film. Because it is not boring in the least. Sure there was the typical irrational and ridiculous actions taken by the protagonists and yes you had to suspend reality at points. This isnt a high art film. But it was very entertaining. The actors did a decent job very suspenseful. Compared to the majority of films that come out I found this to be well made, acted, and written. I'm giving it an 8 because of that and it held my attention and kept me interested. The victim at the end makes an absurd decision but hey, it's a movie not a film.

Dumb Decision Making Turns An 8 Into A 6

[graphicartdude · 6/10 · 26 June 2022]

I actually enjoyed this movie, but the same lazy plot holes and ridiculously stupid decision making (particularly by the victim of course) plague this film like so many others. I find it odd why so many film makers (whether producer, writer or director) decide it best to have their protagonist lack any common sense whatsoever, and why there must be scenes that defy all logic and reality.

The first blatant head scratching moment came after Jules survived the scene at the cliff. I was able to look past that, but to see her doing full sprints through the woods a day or so later was just over the top. It would take weeks, if not months to recover from the injuries sustained from what happened to her.

But apparently the Director/writer/producer felt there wasn't quite enough disbelief for one movie. They decide to borrow from the cliches of every cheesy slasher flick ever written and have their protagonist / victim avoid every possible chance of escape, fighting back, or killing their attacker when the opportunity arrives. And in an ultimate act of stupidity, Jules decides after actually escaping near certain death, that it be best to return with a knife, knowing full well that Jackie is a marksman, that there are guns on site, that she is injured and at a severe disadvantage physically.

It would have been slightly more plausible if she had orchestrated some sort of plan, but instead she haphazardly and loudly burst through the door and roams the house where even the most inexperience of killers could have taken her out with ease.

The other oversight by the writers is having Jackie decide to make the lake her kill site, especially considering her association with another girl's death years prior. There were a couple scenes that indicated Jackie's strong attention to detail and measures taken regarding her killings, yet she somehow overlooks the fact that a coroner could easily notice the severe injuries sustained prior to the reported fall of her wife's supposed 'accidental' fall? Which combined with the fact two neighbors show up missing at the same time (one of whom was her best friend at the time their other friend 'drowned' in the same lake while swimming with Jackie?

Despite all of these oversights, I did still enjoy the movie. The acting was good, and the dynamic between the two women was convincing. I can also understand how people in abusive relationships can act without logic. I just think the movie could have easily been much better if not for a few basic oversights. One last gripe mentioned by another reviewer is how Jackie mentioned an insurance policy as the reason for her actions, yet in a later scene she hints towards other motives.

My reasoning for leaving critical comments in reviews is in hoping filmmakers read them and avoid the same pitfalls in their future creations.

Too many plot-holes and repeating itself.

[johannes2000-1 · 3/10 · 26 February 2019]

Although I applaud the makers of this movie to let their protagonists be a lesbian couple, and this in a very matter-of-fact way, without making a special issue out of it whatsoever, I had wished they had given it a better vessel to sail in, because to be honest: this is not a very strong movie.

The story is hard to tell without giving inmediately the major clue away, so spoiler alert!! It's about a young married couple that comes to spend the weekend in a remote lodge in a forest in honor of their first anniversary. The first say 20 minutes we see them loving and making out and having a great time, and then, completely out of the blue, the one (Jackie) pushes the other (Jules) over a cliff and all of sudden we are to understand that Jackie is in fact a murderous psychopath and Jules her unsuspecting victim. There's given some vague motivation: the insurance money, but later on it's also hinted that Jackie kills for the sport of it. Well, the movie would have ended right there and then, be it not for Jules to have survived the fall, and a cat and mouse game between the two starts off, where each tries to outsmart the other, using brute force as well as cunning schemes, up until the climactic end.

Describing it like this may make it sound as a fairly good premise, but the story is worked out very poorly: thanks to its repetitiveness it gets rather tedious and predictable and it has heaps of plot-holes.

For instance, why does Jackie waits a whole year before suddenly executing her murderous plan?! Why choose a location where she knows that old acquaintances live who know her from way back when, with the risk of exposure (which indeed does happen)?! Why do both girls after they think they murdered the other not check first if it's definitive, instead of instantly running off alone to muse over it and then returning to find that the assumed corpse has fled?! Why didn't Jules started screaming hell as soon as the other couple entered the house instead of playing so duly nice for such a long time?!

But all this is nothing compared to the most mind-boggling question of all: how did Jules survive a fall from a say 40 meters high cliff, landing flat on her back on a rocky bottom?! By some miracle she does and we see her dragging herself through the woods, several wounds on her head, dislocated shoulder, broken fingers, ankles, big flesh-wound in her belly and a bruised spleen (whatever that may mean, apparently Jules is able to diagnose that herself!). But within a few hours she is totally tidied up and revived, so the visiting couple doesn't notice anything the matter with her, and in the last half hour of the movie Jules runs like crazy along the house and the premises, either chasing or trying to escape Jackie. What is she, Wondergirl??

As for the acting, I guess both Hannah Emily Anderson and Brittany Allen did okay, but in my opinion Anderson went a bit over the top when her character went into the relentless killer mode.

Enjoyed 3/4 of this film.

[jmbovan-47-160173 · 7/10 · 12 October 2020]

Not a bad depiction of psychopathy for a theatrical effort. The plot shifts halfway through toward the absurdity, but I could still go along with it for the film's sake. Then the last act just turned contrived for nothing better than a twist ending, I'm assuming. Sigh. What could have been pretty good turned sour with the poor choice of the final girl. Harumph. Too bad as up to this point they had a decent film going.