Untraceable (2008)

Directed by: Gregory Hoblit | 96 minutes | thriller, crime | Actors: Diane Lane, Billy Burke, Colin Hanks, Joseph Cross, Mary Beth Hurt, Peter Lewis, Tyrone Giordano, Perla Haney-Jardine, Tim De Zarn, Chris Cousins, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Trina Adams, Brynn Baron, John Breen, Dan Callahan, Erin Carufel, Gray Eubank, Zack Hoffman, Len Huynh, Dax Jordan, Daniel Liu, Kirk Mouser

Genre films, which on the one hand want to be an exciting thriller and on the other hand also want to have a socially conscious underlay, often find themselves in a complicated split. Especially when the bottom layer contains criticism of the violent, sensation-seeking society, it becomes problematic. It’s the same with ‘Untraceable’. On the one hand, the film contains an interesting analysis of the dangers of the Internet, and the possibilities for widespread dissemination of immoral films. On the other hand, the film is to a certain extent guilty of that which is condemned, namely sensationalism and showing explicit violence or suffering. This ultimately makes the message, as it emerges in the film, relatively empty, leaving a conventional – and rather weak – serial killer thriller like we’ve seen many times before. And that’s a shame because the theme itself is intriguing.

Many types of abuses and disadvantages of the digital highway are discussed in ‘Untraceable’, and the main characters in the film do not always seem to stay out of the picture. At the beginning of the film, an order is given to kick in a door with only circumstantial evidence. Then the finger is explicitly pointed at a character who illegally downloads music and movies. Of course you can’t, but this crime in the film seems to be there purely to warn the viewer. Moments later, the limited international regulations are criticized when it turns out that the detectives can’t do anything because it is a Russian server and they have no authority to retrieve information about it.

All this is just a prelude to the central problem of film: should everything be put on the internet with impunity and made accessible? And, if this concerns videos of crimes, to what extent do you as a visitor to these types of sites encourage these practices, and are you guilty of this? And what does it say about someone if he/she likes to watch sensational movies? When does it change from a “healthy” curiosity to expressions of a morbid interest? Is it similar to disaster tourism and standing still in a car crash, or is it more serious? The film notes how people freely – and frequently – look at images of a journalist’s beheading – clearly referring to the actual beheading of British journalist Daniel Pearl. The murderer in ‘Untraceable’ speaks very directly to the visitor of his site – and in fact also the viewer of ‘Untraceable’ himself – about his (moral) responsibility when watching horrific videos on the internet. The killer is cut from the same cloth as Jigsaw from the ‘Saw’ series. Here too, he “only” creates the circumstances under which the – highly probable – death of his victims will take place. He creates the most creative setups, using ingredients like nitroglycerin, anticoagulant, and circular saws, then leaves it to the visitors of his site, killwithme.com, to seal the fate of his victims. Because, the “hits” on the site set in motion the torture – and eventual death – of its prisoners. The faster and the more hits there are, the faster people will die. The killer tries to appear morally superior and to wash his hands in innocence (much like the movie/director Hoblit also tries to do) by basically letting his visitors do the work.

The visitors know this, but do not stay away because of this fact. On the contrary, they are arriving on the site faster and in greater numbers. This fact is thought-provoking. It is a pity, therefore, that the film itself, in addition to proclaiming its intellectual message, is above all an ordinary psychological thriller, which aims to portray every murder as exciting as possible – and often in great detail – and uses every stupid horror cliché from the film maker’s book to the expected confrontations to take place. The film shows hints of ‘Se7en’ and ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ but unfortunately cannot match the tension that was present in these films. It is disadvantageous that the murderer is known so quickly, and moreover, in the last act, turns out not to be very smart.

Fortunately, Diane Lane still manages to offer some solace. This solid actress knows how to make even the most hopeless films watchable, and although ‘Untraceable’ is not a bad film, her presence does a lot to keep the viewer interested and to empathize with her character. Until she makes some mindless choices towards the end of the film that are purely motivated by genre conventions – or rather, the weak script. The dialogue isn’t always intelligent or subtle either, and it happens several times that a character draws an “illuminating” conclusion that the viewer had already drawn fifteen minutes earlier.

It is a pity that more attention has not been paid to the script, as there is quite a lot of potential for an intelligent, haunting thriller. The theme is captivating, Lane is (always) good, and Hoblit has shown in the past that he can make good thrillers, of which ‘Primal Fear’ stands out the most. Unfortunately, ‘Untraceable’ now feels too much like an uninspired copy of other films in the genre. A copy with a nice, contemporary angle, that’s for sure, but with too little consistency and integrity to be convincing.