40
Watts does her usual commendable job with the flatly written character but ultimately, as the title would suggest, she runs into a wall.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
38
Chicago Sun-Times by Bill Zwecker
This is a disappointing waste of good acting talent, coupled with a very pedantic and not very intriguing story from first-time screenwriter Christina Hodson.
30
The Hollywood Reporter by Frank Scheck
The lurid and unconvincing Shut In should have lived up to its title.
20
The New York Times by Jeannette Catsoulis
In this achingly inept thriller, you will see Naomi Watts do what she can to sell a plot of such preposterousness that the derisory laughter around me began barely 20 minutes in.
30
As thrillers go, Shut In is conspicuously short of thrills. It’s an undistinguished and predictable hodgepodge, so blandly generic as to suggest that it was cobbled together by filmmakers referencing a how-to handbook who picked spare parts from other, better thrillers.
30
Screen International by John Hazelton
Most of the story’s credibility goes out the door with the big plot twist.
30
Los Angeles Times by Kimber Myers
Despite a strong effort from Naomi Watts, Shut In is more effective as a 90-minute commercial for the L.L. Bean aesthetic than as a pseudo-psychological thriller.
11
Austin Chronicle by Marc Savlov
Regardless, the upside is that Shut In is cinematic Sominex for those in need of a 90-minute nap, a thousand yawns, and zero thrills.
38
RogerEbert.com by Peter Sobczynski
The kind of lazy genre hackwork that will inspire more yawns than screams—at least until the final reels, when the sounds of incredulous laughter will no doubt take over.
30
Ideologically, morally, and narratively, the film contains no point of view, no perspective that suggests human beings joined forces to create a piece of art they can stand behind.