Verity Review: Hathaway and Johnson Have Fun. The Movie Doesn’t
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Film director Michael Showalter has adapted the bestselling erotic thriller novel "Verity" for the screen, starring Anne Hathaway as a reclusive author and Dakota Johnson as a struggling ghostwriter drawn into a seduction plot with Hathaway's husband (Josh Hartnett). Whilst Hathaway and Johnson fully commit to the melodramatic, trashy fun the genre demands, Showalter's cautious direction undermines the film's potential, resulting in a competent but ultimately safe adaptation that fails to deliver the dark thrills its premise promises.
The film's plot revolves around ghostwriter Lowen being hired to complete the manuscript of Verity Crawford, who is now paralyzed after a car accident. The article praises both actresses—particularly Hathaway, who deftly plays Verity's contrasting public persona versus her secret manuscript's revelations, and Johnson, who brings deadpan delivery to her character's attraction to Jeremy. However, the review criticises Showalter's unwillingness to embrace the genre's inherent absurdity and melodrama, arguing that his restrained approach leaves the film merely adequate rather than compulsively watchable, as great erotic thrillers should be.
- Hathaway and Johnson excel, but Showalter's timid direction undermines the thriller
- Strong source material and cast hampered by overly cautious filmmaking
- Competent adaptation that misses the dark, trashy fun the genre requires
Full account
Verity marks an adaptation of bestselling novelist Colleen Hoover's work, brought to screen by director Michael Showalter. The film centres on a peculiar arrangement between Lowen Ashleigh, a fledgling writer portrayed by Dakota Johnson, and a prestigious author of the same name played by Anne Hathaway. Lowen is approached to secretly complete Hathaway's character's literary series following a catastrophic accident that has rendered her paralysed and nonverbal. Josh Hartnett appears as Jeremy Crawford, Verity's seemingly devoted husband, whose presence introduces romantic complications as Lowen settles into the couple's isolated Vermont estate. The narrative architecture borrows from Gothic and psychological traditions, positioning itself as a contemporary exploration of forbidden attraction and domestic mystery.
A considerable distinction emerges between what the cast delivers and the directorial approach governing their material. Both Hathaway and Johnson demonstrate considerable commitment to their roles, with Johnson channelling a knowing sophistication in her portrayal of the vulnerable but resourceful newcomer. The performances embrace the melodramatic and transgressive dimensions inherent in the source material. Conversely, Showalter's stewardship appears markedly restrained, maintaining a carefully controlled distance from the material's more provocative and sensational elements. This fundamental misalignment—whereby the actors pursue heightened emotional and narrative territory whilst direction resists such ambition—creates an internal tension that colours the entire viewing experience.
Critical assessments diverge meaningfully regarding the film's structural integrity. One perspective identifies third-act disintegration as the principal failing, with narrative threads left dangling and plot mechanics unravelling under scrutiny. A significant supporting character—a sinister household employee—inexplicably withdraws from the narrative without trace or consequence. The screenplay asks audiences to accept multiple competing revelations and an explicitly unresolved conclusion, positions framed as deliberately ambiguous yet perceived as narratively evasive. These cumulative weaknesses compound rather than compound tension, leaving the central mystery feeling contrived rather than compelling.
Verity arrives amid demonstrable audience appetite for sophisticated erotic mystery narratives, as shown by recent comparable successes. Yet the film appears unable to capitalise on this cultural momentum. Critical commentary splits between two interpretations of its failure: one diagnosis emphasises the director's excessive caution and reluctance to embrace the material's inherent audacity, whilst the other targets mechanical flaws in the screenplay itself—exposition that fails to clarify, mysteries that fail to captivate. Both readings suggest the film languishes between respectability and entertainment, satisfying neither impulse sufficiently. The release is scheduled for 1 October in Australia and 2 October in the United Kingdom and United States.
Where outlets differ
Source 1 attributes primary failure to directorial timidity and caution; Source 2 emphasises third-act structural collapse and plot mechanics
Source 1 emphasises the actors' strong commitment to material; Source 2 treats performances as unable to compensate for narrative deficiency
Source 1 positions influences as Gothic and Hitchcockian; Source 2 specifically invokes du Maurier and De Palma
Only Source 2 provides theatrical release dates
Source 1 characterises the film as acceptable if unambitious; Source 2 is more decidedly negative about its execution and structure
More coverage