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.

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...

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!

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.

Anyone think it's a little silly that most of the reviews here so far seem to mainly consist of "Gee whiz do I hate movies filmed in first person pov, so gee whiz was I shocked to find that I was upset that I also didn't like this movie that was filmed in first person pov!"? If you have an irrational hatred of anything in first person, don't watch this. Problem solved.

That aside, it's a perfectly solid sci-fi action movie. The core concept is clever, though at it's heart it's just a flashy action movie. Don't expect this to be a thought-provoker like The Arrival, but it's not down there in the complete brain dead zone like a Michael Bay movie either. It's somewhere in between, with a decent plot, above average special effects, and the always enjoyable, though perhaps a little underutilized, Dan Stevens.

It's not going to make any top 10 lists or win any major awards, but it succeeds at being entertaining without requiring that you shut down your brain entirely to enjoy it.