Kill Switch (2017) Reviews

• Good initial idea and CGI, very bad script

  aref-cs2017-05-20

  I rate the initial idea behind this movie as good. However, first of all the way they tried to make energy does not sound very logical! Also, they just mentioned jargon such as Mtheory and Parallel universes possibly without knowing which one is related to what! And parallel universes here are basically parallel earths! This list can go on and on; therefore, the science part of this movie have some problems. But I'll give it a pass. Then we get to the story telling part of this movie which is absolutely poor! Things just happen without proper causes! People pass on using cars or bicycles and prefer to just walk and run far distances! Bullets avoid hitting heroes and explosions avoid harming them at all costs for most parts of the movie! Also, there are big plot mistakes regarding things that happen on parallel universes. All in all, I would have gave it a 3, but since it has good CGI, I gave it 4. Would I recommend you to watch it? Only if you are bored to death and you are out of good SciFi movies.

• Not bad

  Freedom0602862018-05-21

  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.

• Proof positive that excessive use of first person POV...

  paradux2017-05-19

  ... 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.

• Umm... first person shooter point of view?

  SilkeJ2017-05-20

  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...

• If You're A Gamer

  JBenMartin2017-05-20

  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.