I have no idea when the surveillance technology was first created or used, but anyone who's watched a cop movie over the past several decades knows that one of the things the police always try to do is keep a suspect on the phone line so that the call can be traced. I'm similarly hazy on exactly when the villains got wind of that and used counter technology to alter or block such attempts, at least, that is, in the movies.
Nowadays, of course, the police and other law enforcement entities must contend with cyber crimes -- those committed on or using computers, and the efforts of the bad guys in trying to prevent their location from being traced back to them. Such is one of the pivotal elements but also one of the many problems that bedevil "Untraceable."
To be more accurate, it should probably be called "Saw V" as it borrows quite liberally from that "torture porn" film series, complete with victims stuck in elaborate traps that deliver gruesome ends. The difference -- and the film's notable promotional selling point -- is that such torture is broadcast on the Internet.
The perp's rationale goes a tiny bit deeper than creating a new age version of the carny sideshow (with revenge topping public humiliation as the modus operandi), but the added twist is that the more "viewers" who log into the website and watch, the faster the carnage and death will occur.
The rationale behind that choice is purely from the filmmakers' standpoint, as it's supposed to up the ante in terms of making the viewer worry about each subsequent victim (which we naturally know will eventually either be the main cop -- Diane Lane curiously slumming it here -- someone in her family, or someone with whom she works -- the top choice being Colin Hanks as the young partner vs. Billy Burke as the more seasoned police detective).
Unfortunately, the film comes off as such a lame and sometimes illogical rip-off of the "Saw" flicks that one really won't care. Beyond the fact that it doesn't even have the thematic depth, if you will, that those flicks possessed (where moral choices accompanied the insidious torture), much of that stems from this pic's overall rote nature (not to mention plethora of unbelievable material).
The characters are completely of the stock variety (the single mom FBI agent, the handsome cop, the deranged killer, etc.), and the script by Robert Fyvolent & Mark R. Brinker and Allison Burnett does nothing to flesh them out to any noticeable degree (meaning they don't engage us and thus elicit little sympathy or concern about their well-being). Throw in a by-the-numbers plot -- overseen by director Gregory Hoblit -- where nothing comes as a surprise and the killer is revealed way too early in the proceedings, and our interest wanes long before the big, predictable finale.
In fact, about the only thing the pic got me thinking about was why they've kept making films like this after the release so many years ago of "The Silence of the Lambs." A masterpiece of the genre, that movie and its characters were deeply affecting on so many levels that it can never be matched, and certainly not by a sub-standard offering such as this. Then there's the question of what Lane saw in the script that enticed her to sign on. While she's actually decent in the part, making the most of a sorely underwritten role, she's pretty much left high and dry by those behind the camera.
Obviously, the answer to both queries is money. As sad as it may be, actresses in her age range are offered fewer roles as they go along, but adding her name to the marquee could draw in crowds that would otherwise avoid the torture porn material. And with those "Saw" flicks making so much money, I'm guessing the inflow of that kind of green turned the go-ahead production light for this one the same color.
Only time will tell whether such choices ultimately pay off. Yet, while the film isn't entirely unwatchable (thanks to the presence of Lane), its movie lineage is anything but "Untraceable." The pic rates as a 3.5 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](/images/underground_header.jpg)