Kill Switch

This is an okay sci-fi movie, although it does have some imperfections. It's certainly not dull, and the story is original. The acting wasn't bad either.

It should be taken into consideration that it didn't have a high budget, I think they did not too badly with what resources they had.

Okay, I felt like I'm in a first person shooter game pretty much for the duration of the movie. I do like the idea behind the movie, but the First Person view ruined it for me to a large degree.

It's okay, but it's not something to shout off the rooftops. The story is jerky and disjointed at times. You do get the gist of what's going on, but the "info" on the screen (from the Head up Display type screen) was quite distracting.

It could have been done much better, and if they'd ditch the first person shooter idea, it could be phenomenal.

If (like me) you get seasick when you play first person shooter games -- this one's not for you.

P.S. I had to type out all the first person shooter etc stuff, because the site decided I was shouting...

... will give you a headache it will days to get rid of.

The incredible LADY IN THE LAKE 1947 (which you MUST see) shows the correct way to use the first-person POV. It is an artform all its own and most definitely an art form that has NOT been mastered by Director Tim Smit in Kill Switch.

Them there is the casting. Actors are supposed to have range but it seems here as if the casting director caught Dan Stevens in Legion - where he does a pretty good job of playing someone who is 100% of the time on edge, perplexed, confused and puzzled -- and therefore elected to cast Stevens here as someone who is 100% of the time on edge, perplexed, confused and puzzled. In gambling, they call that "pushing your luck."

The story in the right hands with the right characters (I am remembering Sandra Bullock in a spaceship talking to herself for 2 hours, and doing a heck of a job) could have been clever and compelling. This is neither.

And I saved the editing for last, not because it deserves special treatment but because I had to find a thesaurus to come up with a word that describes how bad it is. About 5 minutes into the movie, you will wonder if the projectionist skipped a reel.

(Depending on your age, I guess. If you are a millennial, you may have no idea what a projectionist is, or even what a reel is.) The point being, you are already committed to the first person POV, God help us all, so why would you want to further confuse the viewer with herky-jerky editing as well?

Recommended? Being honest, no, not really.

The premise of the story is good, the special effects are good too. The acting isn't even all that bad. The story/plot/dialog is where the film falls down somewhat. The camera work (1st person for most of the film) is where it jumps off a cliff. Best review I saw was "good if you've run out of good SF films to watch". That about sums it up.

Yes, that's right, folks. Dan Stevens, the star of the movie, only appears for about ten minutes. He appears as Will Porter at his home, in his office and on the lawn. That's it. The rest of the time he's hidden behind some HUD device so the producers wouldn't have to pay him very much. The director has the screen fade to black while the character is knocked out.

The movie is a real big yawn, except for a couple of moments of intense fighting. As another reviewer put it, it is literally a First Person Shooter where you see everything from the protagonist's point of view. You actually start to hope that because Porter is a PILOT, that he'll take control of one of those fancy flying vehicles. Don't hold your breath.

The Pseudo-science behind the project (that pillar of light that you see in the poster) seems likely enough, but sounds incredibly risky as opposed to more "conventional" sources of energy.

What's the message of the movie? Hope? Desperation? Stupidity? How to make a visually crappy movie?

No, the message of this movie is save your money, save your time, and avoid this "movie". You'll be glad you did!