Kill Switch

... 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.

A plot that could be good, got trashed by the lack of intelligence in the execution, good cgi, bad direction.

This movie has so much potential. Really.

However, more than 70 percent of the film was shot as if you're inside an interactive video game. More than half of those scenes require you to read what's displayed on the graphic user interface as seen by the lead character to know what's going on.

Fifteen minutes into the movie, I'm starting to wonder, could it be that the studio couldn't afford to pay Dan Stevens to appear for the entire 90 minutes of the film that they had to resort to this first-person point of view story telling?

The experimental camera work is almost as bad as the Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield and Project Almanac (just to name a few). I've known people who've experienced motion sickness for days after watching these movies.

If you're thinking of watching this movie just to catch a glimpse of Dan, please don't. He's barely in it. Avoid this 90-minute of visual misery.

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.

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.