Time Out

Watts does her usual commendable job with the flatly written character but ultimately, as the title would suggest, she runs into a wall.

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.

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.

Screen Daily by John Hazelton

Most of the story’s credibility goes out the door with the big plot twist.

Screen International by John Hazelton

Most of the story’s credibility goes out the door with the big plot twist.

Variety by Joe Leydon

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.

The Hollywood Reporter by Frank Scheck

The lurid and unconvincing Shut In should have lived up to its title.

TheWrap by Sam Fragoso

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.

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.

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.

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.