"Untraceable" ** (out of ****)What is it that attracts people to violence? Why are teen slasher films routinely number one at the box-office upon their release? Why do people say "I love a good scare"?
"Untraceable" a lack-luster new thriller starring Diane Lane makes you think about such things. Too bad the movie wasn't a bit better or it would provide a good social commentary even though it would make the film a bit hypocritical.
Why hypocritical? "Untraceable" is a film about cybercrime. Diane Lane stars as Agent Jennifer Marsh, an FBI agent whose sub-division deals with capturing cyber predators. A website site has come to her attention http://www.killwithme.com/. On it viewers watch live stream murders take place. The hitch is, the more people who log in, the faster the person dies.
So while "Untraceable" is warning us, and questions our fascination with violence, the film itself is violent and we are watching it. The film condemns the very thing it is doing. Sound hypocritical?
Many critics of the film, and there are many, have stated the film glorifies violence to a new level. Film critic for the New York Times, Stephen Holden, described the film as such, "morally duplicitous torture porn". Many people have used the phrase "torture porn" to describe this film. I don't think that is fair. I wouldn't say the film takes any pleasure in showing us torture. The violence, while at first graphic, later subsides and takes a back seat to the plot. That is when the film becomes the most watchable.
"Untraceable" seems to want to set itself up as a cat and mouse game between the website designer and Marsh, but, the film isn't very suspenseful and for that matter, not scary either. Marsh's partner is Griffin Dowd (Colin Hanks) who does little more than provide comic relief (and very little at that). It is such a bland, wasted character, I wish the screenwriters would have eliminated the character from their final draft. Many of the characters in this film are terribly underwritten. There is no growth or chemistry between anyone.
A detective is brought onto the case, Eric Box (Billy Burke) and in most other films, this would provide a love interest for Marsh, a widower with a daughter. Box knew her husband. What a coincidence! But the film doesn't provide us with a love story. Which in many ways I'm glad it doesn't. It avoids that cliche and supplies us with others instead.
What really drags "Untraceable" down is merely the routine nature of the film. It is heavily predictable and takes no chances to try something new. If it had least been suspenseful and kept me involved I may not have mind the film's familiarity but that doesn't happen.
Lane's performance is decent. One gets the feeling her presence brings more to the character than the writers originally intended. And she is the only character that really remains interesting to watch.
The Internet has provided Hollywood with lots of material to make thrillers. Cybercrime is a real and serious problem, whether it is identity thief or myspace stalkers, it needs to be addressed. Watching this film I was reminded of another film dealing with a deadly website. "Feardotcom" which starred Stephen Rea and Natascha McElhone (the beauty on Showtime's "Californication"). It was about a website which made people confront their fears. Most people hated that movie, but I really liked it. It was a good genre film which created some suspense. "Untraceable" could have taken a few lessons from it.
"Untraceable" is not even a made you can work up anger about. It didn't provoke strong feelings in me either way. It merely exist. It's not a terrible film, it is just boring.
Posts
