Horrifyingly "Untraceable"

In a world of cyber-crime where the serial killer is virtually untraceable, FBI Agent Jennifer Marsh must crack the code before she becomes the next victim.

Untraceable begins when Marsh is given a tip by an anonymous caller about a sadistic website. On the site, the tech-savvy internet predator uses snuff films to document the murders of his victims online. For the purpose of entertainment and distribution, the killer has deemed the public in control of the murders. The more people who log on to the website killwithme.com (now a Sony Pictures interactive site used to promote the film), the faster his victims die. While the first victim is a cat, the murders begin to escalate and, soon enough, the crimes become personal for Marsh.
With muted colors and aerial shots, Untraceable successfully delivers a home-made movie feel complete with jumpy camera takes. Plenty of long shots throughout the film act as watchful eyes peering through the most intimate parts of the characters’ lives. Subtle at first, this manner of filming becomes most evident during an intimate family dinner. Marsh, her mother and daughter are framed in such a way that her dining room window transforms into a television screen, with Marsh’s family as the prime-time program.

A new twist on a familiar plot, Untraceable takes Silence of the Lambs to the next level. Here Marsh (Diane Lane) is not only after a serial killer, but is up against technology—a technology harboring a society of voyeurs and sadists. However, unlike Jodie Foster’s performance as Agent Starling, Lane’s is not convincing. Best known for her roles as a lonely pre-school teacher in Must Love Dogs or a frustrated writer who finds refuge in Italy in Under the Tuscan Sun, Lane’s portrayal as a crime-buster isn’t light-hearted like her past roles. Perhaps her previous roles have defined her or perhaps she just cannot live up to Foster’s Oscar-winning performance, but Lane is better at the comically lonely, love-hungry, middle-aged woman role.

Compared to other crime thrillers, Untraceable did not live up to its potential. With the only recognizable actor being Lane, the cast was lacking. Not only were the main actors (Peter Lewis, Billy Burke, Colin Hanks and Joseph Cross) unfamiliar, but their weak execution of lines evidenced a lack of experience. At the same time, Untraceable was predictable with every downloaded file, with every click of the mouse.

No suspense, no thrills, just gore. If Untraceable was meant to shock, it only disgusted with images of a victim covered in boils from extreme heat or relinquishing his skin to a tub of battery acid. Wondering what the killer’s next torture method will be is the only suspense that drives the film. The only shocker was how the film managed enough material to make it over an hour and a half.

Not a complete disappointment, but a disappointment none the less. Maybe with a better cast, the film could have fulfilled its goal as a suspenseful crime thriller. It may have a technological twist, but with a plot that has been exhausted by the middle of the movie, there’s no need to stay for the end, which is merely a cop-out. Perhaps director Gregory Hoblit (Fracture) thought the torture had already gone on long enough and decided to put an abrupt end to the misery.

No terror here, just a terrible movie with the underlying message that society has become depraved. Unfazed by virtual murder, cyber-space has made the world disturbingly impersonal. This warning is the only remotely chilling thing about Untraceable.