Better than any of the Hostel or Saw films.
Tools:
Send to a friend »
"Untraceable" is one of those films that makes you wonder why it was made. On the one hand, it seems to be a polemic against the Internet generation and the allegedly maladjusted folks who populate chat rooms and are so insensitive to human life that they'll click on a site even though they know their "hit" will make a person shown online die much more quickly. But on the other hand, it seems to revel in the torture.
"You know, if no one was watching now, you'd just be sitting in water," the psycho-killer tells one of his victims, who's neck-deep in the wacko's basement while a sulfuric acid IV drips into the tank, one drop for every Internet hit. As the hit-counter goes crazy, this fellow's bath becomes battery acid, and his flesh quickly corrodes and he dies right there on everyone's computer screen, courtesy of live video streaming. So what does that say about human nature? That the Internet has magnified and accelerated the morbid impulse to gawk at train wrecks? That the Internet has made us more uncivil, more inhuman? As the killer places a camera so it streams video of the house of the FBI agent investigating the case and the agent smashes it, one Internet junkie gives some pretty outrageous site feedback: "Kill the chick. She fucked up your camera."
As I watched this, I wondered why, in this day and age of copycat crimes, anyone would release a film about a fictional Web site like "Help Me Kill?" And how in the world can it criticize while also taking part?
It turns out that the screenplay comes from two newcomers, Robert Fyvolent and Mark Brinker, but the director cut his teeth on TV crime shows like "Hill Street Blues," "L.A. Law," "Equal Justice," "Cop Rock," and "NYPD Blue." This film by Gregory Hoblit goes well beyond the cop investigations and, because of its depiction of kinky, graphic violence, has more in common with films like "Saw" or "Hostel."
But "Untraceable" has Diane Lane going for it, and she does as good of a job with situational terror as Jodie Foster--and with more emotional range, I might add. Lane's performance is a big plus, but in fairness, despite the familiar plot-line and excessive torture that's becoming way too common in slasher films these days, "Untraceable" also manages to hold audiences in suspense. That has to count for something. In fact, if you ignore the conceptual paradox and a slapdash ending that changes things by, oh, 180 degrees, it's not a bad film. The way they depict the Cyber Crimes division at work and the way that hackers work seems absolutely credible, and that adds to the suspense. It's just a naggingly confusing film, insomuch as you don't know who the filmmakers are lecturing. The tone is such that you know they're preaching at someone. Maybe themselves?
Lane plays FBI Agent Jennifer Marsh, who works in the Portland, Oregon Cyber Crimes Division along with Agent Griffin Dowd (Colin Hanks). The local detective on the case, Eric Box (Billy Burke), also gets plenty of air time, but other than that the cast is a blur--even Marsh's daughter and mother, because of how little time she spends with them. She even has to leave in the middle of her daughter's birthday party when the rogue site goes live again.
We've seen most of this before, and the investigation unravels the mystery of the killer much too quickly for my tastes. What's worse is that the killer's actions seem to move too quickly and unexplainably beyond the killing of a neighbor's cat right to some pretty horrendous human torture. Where's the build-up? For a crime thriller/slasher film, this one telegraphs an awful lot. When, for example, one character phones to say he thinks he's found the connection and he just has to check one more thing before he tells her, well, you know he's toast. The poor guy never had a chance, because the role he plays is pretty much the one that's marked for extinction in just about every movie of this sort, it's such a cliché. Then again, all genre films have their conventions. It's what writers and directors do with them that makes them interesting. In this one, I just don't think there's enough that's different to really make a difference and break the genre mold in some way. And yet, all of that said, the movie has enough believable dialogue and is otherwise constructed so that, like people reluctant to look at the victims of an accident, you still find yourself watching. So what does that say about me, I'm wondering?
Average user rating (1-5):
Not yet rated.
Not yet rated.