Kill Switch (I) (2017) User Reviews

Good initial idea and CGI, very bad script

[aref-cs · 4/10 · 20 May 2017]

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

[Freedom060286 · 6/10 · 21 May 2018]

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...

[paradux · 6/10 · 19 May 2017]

... 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.

Decent Friday evening movie to watch with pizza and friends

[naum-rusomarov-944-460795 · 5/10 · 13 June 2018]

It's a reasonably well acted and an interesting sci-fi film. It's not the most exciting nor smart film ever, but it's not terribly bad either. It has some elements from first-person shooter games, some other parts are your typical scenes, some tropes from other sci-fi films, etc. Very average sci-fi flick.

I don't think it's good enough to pay money to watch it at the cinema, but if you can find it on Netflix or Amazon Prime, then go for it. You might actually be pleasantly surprised.

Umm... first person shooter point of view?

[SilkeJ · 5/10 · 20 May 2017]

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

[JBenMartin · 4/10 · 20 May 2017]

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.

Nice idea, poor execution.

[mayfield-520-3817 · 15 January 2018]

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.

Kill Switch: Enjoyable sci-fi effort

[Platypuschow · 7/10 · 2 April 2019]

This Danish made independent sci-fi is quite the surprise!

It tells the story of a revolutionary new power source, but as usual nothing goes to plan and it puts the entire world in jeopardy.

Filmed from two perspectives, real time in entirely first person and flashbacks through a more traditional format. Though quite disorientating it actually works.

With a mostly unknown but competent cast, gripping story and SFX that are considerably better than you'd ever expect from a movie of this type I was certainly left impressed.

Sure it's not flawless, certain elements don't work as well as others but as a whole this is a very well made movie and certainly puts many similar Hollywood efforts to shame by comparison.

I'd call this essential viewing for lovers of sci-fi, a lot of fun.

The Good:

Very stylish

Some great visuals

Bérénice Marlohe

The Bad:

Something felt missing

Transitioning between first person and third person can get frustrating

Over-complicated and confusing.

[paulclaassen · 3/10 · 18 June 2018]

Intriguing at first, the film then becomes very confusing, and still leaves room for explanation by the end of the film. Dan Stevens features in about a quarter of the film. The rest of the time we 'see' him only through first-person mode. Why was it done this way? And why do we see messages as if watching through a mask? We learn more about the story by jumping backwards and forwards, but this is also very confusing, especially also since the action takes place in two universes. At times I thought I was watching 'Skyline' again. The film also played like a video game, rendering most of the action not very suspenseful or serious. What was Will Porter (Dan Stevens) actually doing for Alterplex? Yes, they needed him in case of emergency, but what was he doing for them in the meantime? Who made the drones and who operates them? Nope, I didn't enjoy this film, as it was too confusing and there were way too many loopholes. 'Skyline' meets 'Hardcore Henry'.

Some visuals were amazing, though.

It just seems like it could have been a lot better.

[Hellmant · 6/10 · 3 November 2017]

'KILL SWITCH': Three Stars (Out of Five)

A sci-fi/thriller about a physicist, and former pilot, who must save the universe when an experiment, dealing with unlimited quantum energy, goes horrifically wrong. It stars Dan Stevens, Berenice Marlohe, Tygo Gernandt, Charity Wakefield and Mike Reus. It was directed by first time feature filmmaker Tim Smit, and it was written by Charlie Kindinger and Omid Nooshin. I found it to be a mildly entertaining, and somewhat interesting, sci-fi/thriller flick.

The story is set in the near future, when a power company (called Alterplex) has built a huge tower which can access unlimited quantum energy. Strange things begin occurring around the world though, because of this new power device, and former pilot (and physicist) Will Porter (Stevens) is called on to help. He's sent into an alternate universe (which is a mirrored version of Earth); and it also has a giant tower which controls quantum energy. Once there Will realizes that this universe is in much worse shape than his own, and he has to team-up with alternate versions of people that he knows (in his own world), in order to try to save both of their dimensions.

Most of the movie is filmed in a first-person perspective, like a video game. I think this effect worked well in the 2015 action flick 'HARDCORE HENRY', but here it's a little less effective; primarily because this film doesn't 100% commit to it. I think Dan Stevens is a good actor (especially in the awesome 2014 action-thriller 'THE GUEST'), but here his talents are a little wasted (especially since he's barely on screen in it). The film has a great premise though, and some cool effects, it just seems like it could have been a lot better in my opinion.

Bored

[siu98sas · 1/10 · 21 May 2017]

From the trailer this ticked a lot of boxes, which looked to be a promising sci-fi flick. But sadly after half an hour in, my mind started wondering elsewhere, and after an hour I was hoping it would end soon.

There was very little character building, so those like his sister and her son I didn't care about, or his boss, or the 'rebel' leader guy, not even the main character.

Maybe I need to see it again, but I don't know what role Dan Stevens was playing or why he was working for Alterplex other than he used to be a pilot. It's like they had a loose story-line; An energy company/science experiment tries to create unlimited energy source, it goes wrong, send Dan Stevens to switch it off. The script writers then tried to build it up from there, padding it out with CGI, chase scenes, a few ingredients of other films Demolition Man (underground rebels), Doom (first person shooter) etc

Most of the film is filmed in first person, so you're basically in a video game you have no control over. I don't know why this is, other than to try and be original or clever, to make you feel like you're in the movie, but it fails on every level. The chase scenes tried to be dramatic and tense, but again I just didn't feel it. Maybe if you're an avid video-gamer you might like it, but I can't see any other reason than that.

Live action Half Life movie

[debabrata4747 · 8/10 · 1 September 2017]

If you ever wanted a decent Half Life Movie this is the nearest you are gonna get.This has a similar outlandish science fiction plot, portals between dimensions, a Barney Calhoun type character. Hell, the hero even looks somewhat like Gordon Freeman minus the glasses. Too bad the hazard suit is missing. The hero even picks up a crowbar at one point of the movie. I do not know why so much hate in the other reviews. This is a pretty smart looking sci-fi movie which I enjoyed. Seeing the reviews I almost didn't. I am glad I saw this. Decent graphics, the plot is straight out of a video game so are the camera angles. The lead takes 1-2 very stupid decisions but what the heck, its a video game inspired movie after all. I enjoyed this movie.

Passable

[arriva · 6/10 · 19 May 2017]

They are very minor spoilers below, beware.

Almost everything about this movie is top notch despite the fact that it was never released theatrically and there are no well known actors aside from Dan Stevens who plays the protagonist. The CGI is extremely beautiful and realistic and this includes the portrayal of the future along with futuristic guns, drones, computer displays and other things. I also appreciated the science in the movie.

But "almost" is a key word here. There's one department where this movie is solely missing, and it's the script. I'm perfectly content with constant flashes back into the past as they are not really distracting.

The problem is that characters are not sufficiently developed and we've never given a chance to root for them. The protagonist is meant to be a great scientist and a pilot at the same time, but none is proved. The motivation of the protagonist could have been so much better and close to our hearts but we were never properly briefed about his past.

You cannot help but wonder why the protagonist is looking after his sister and her child - their situation and the fact that they are live together are never explained. The child mental illness is also never being delved into. Certain parts of the movie were too long while others were cut.

There's one thing you cannot help but notice: the drones throughout the movie are very bad at aiming and shooting at people and this was another very big disappointment.

Anyways, if you crave for fresh ideas in sci-fi and you're not averse to some plot problems, then you might watch this movie. Just don't set your expectation high. At the same time this movie is a lot better than most "sci-fi" flicks released by DC Comics and Marvel.

6.5/10

Worst Movie I've seen in a long time

[tlarraya · 1/10 · 21 May 2017]

The trailer makes you think that this movie might be good, but most of the film is filmed like in the latter parts of the trailer (like a video-game, as if it is recorded from a camera in the helmet of the protagonist with the image being murky and unpleasant). The dialogue is ridiculous (it's all "hurry" "run") as if the film was a project made by children. There are no surprises (the trailer tells you the whole film). I believe this was a short film converted into a regular film without adding any new ideas that could justify it. It's the worst movie I've seen in a long while.

Decent sci-fi action movie

[horrorgasm · 20 May 2017]

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.

Awful Movie

[Keptinkaveman · 1/10 · 13 July 2017]

DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT WATCH THIS. It's awful, the acting, the plot lines, the tech jargon, all of it is really bad. The only decent thing about this film were the special effects. It had the possibility of being a great story. But no one seemed interested in doing it. The acting was wooden in most places. Wanted to turn it off after the first ten minutes, but my ocd kicked in and I had to watch it till the end. It was painful. It just got worse and worse. Save yourself time, and mental abuse, and skip this one

It's not THAT bad..

[fallxfly · 4/10 · 30 August 2017]

To say this film is one star I think that's being way too harsh. The film had a very interesting plot, that I wish had been executed better, and really nice special effects. Majority of the film is in first person, which I can understand how people wouldn't like that. I thought it was done okay but nothing special. The acting was decent enough, there are rough patches but nothing too terrible. The script lacked a lot that could of helped the idea the story was going with, which I really enjoyed.

All in all I have seen one and two star movies and I believe that this one is a 4 star film... If you are bored and have an hour and a half to kill on a sci-fi movie then sure then is a good time killer for you.

Pity for the good effects

[lalovader-77767 · 4/10 · 20 October 2018]

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

Not too bad at all...

[TheITGuy · 7/10 · 3 July 2017]

This is one of those films that could have gone either way, but given the budget it was never going to be up there with the big guns.

It works quite well and moves at a reasonable pace and, as far as I could see, it didn't leave any gaps in the story. The film's concept was an interesting one - finding unlimited energy and solving the world's fuel crisis - it's been done before but this was a little different.

The acting is what you would expect for a film without major stars - I thought Abi was a bit over-dramatic at times and some of the bit part actors seemed a little wooden.

The special effects were used well and fit in with the Dutch location - it actually makes a nice change for it not to be somewhere in the U.S.

As long as you don't expect too much, go enjoy the film for what it is as you might just walk away surprised.

Warning might cause Headache and vomiting

[nerdo · 1/10 · 3 June 2017]

Directed by someone who is very busy with clever exposition camera-work to match the CGI. Almost all of the first person view is frantic and ...hold in this weird position because this is where the CGI comes in...Wait for it, and here comes the special effect! I'm sure it all felt really clever and involved while shooting, but in the cinema it is just a stomach churning headache inducing version of watching someone play a Dutch version of Hal Life.

Spoiler: bring a bag in case you need to vomit, this could be either from the sickening motion or the horrible script. Which is a shame, the idea is fun, but the childish execution is what destroys the film for me.

Surprisingly good

[frankem-33216 · 7/10 · 3 June 2017]

Surprisingly good movie. I went into it not knowing anything about it. I wasn't disappointed at all. Good story, good special effects, and good acting. Worth a watch for fans of the genre.

... 7/10... Made do with the budget they had. Didn't put it all on one phase of the film. Well thought out.

Bad script, bad acting, bad movie

[b-14636 · 1/10 · 19 May 2017]

Trailer has nice visuals and plot came across as Half-life (pc game). I was hoping to see a decent scifi thing .. but I was left with god awful piece of trash.

There is no logic behind what people do. Their motivation is hard to understand and things are happening at random and drones with "bad guys" are worse at shooting than storm troopers.

Plot is about gaining energy from mass (houses, soil, boats anything around us) and it is gathering it from parallel universe that was created (somehow) just for this reason. It should have been free of carbon life (so that there are no moral issues). As expected, things go bad and our main protagonist has to save the word by going to the other side and shutting down this energy harvesting device. Why does it exist there? Why does it have to be shut there? Why is there a link between worlds and not just one giant harvesting beam of light? ... Also this is another movie with a portal of light in the sky ... No answers are given and final scene gives no logical reason for existing (like everything in this movie).

This movie is bad. Not funny bad or good bad .... just BAD beyond our universe ...

Its worth a watch instead of negative reviews around it

[adilon · 8/10 · 28 August 2017]

It's worth a watch instead of negative reviews around it. The story is good and the acting if not perfect is decent. The graphics and sound effects are decent too. The movie is pretty good from the point of view that it's not a big/huge Hollywood blockbuster and likewise should not be viewed in those terms.

First person shooter movie

[jaapeelman · 6/10 · 12 June 2017]

The idea behind this movie is not so bad and the story is not worse than what Hollywood-movies present to the viewer. It is all about an experiment to create unlimited energy which goes wrong because the lab is raided by rebellions but this is not becoming quite clear to me. Some of the scenes are very nice but when the camera-shots are made in first person shooter than the camera-movements are much too fast. Also disturbing are the many flash-backs which do not make the story-line much clearer. As said, the idea behind the movie is not bad but the working out lacks some fine-tuning. If you like sci-fi it is not a waste of time but better watch it outside a cinema to save yourself the money.

Good idea..bad movie

[slimsterstanley · 4/10 · 26 August 2017]

This idea was good at first, but the movie is bad due to bad script and bad acting. It's not one of the worst movies I've seen. The special effects are not bad, and there are some quite good action scenes. You can still watch it if you are a big, I mean big Sci-fi movie fan. Otherwise, you will get bored by the first 10 minutes.