You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
Cool. The movie starts straight into the plot, which is always a plus, and then thats where the movie goes beyond good. The scenes switching between the "live-streaming" and the actual basement where the killing is, was very well paced, and was well placed. Towards the end, it got better and better with one plot hole, which was never actually resolved, so who knows hat that means.
The Plot was very original and very realistic. Alot of people definately would go on a site just for curiosity, and to see if the killing is real or a hoax.
The acting by Diane Lane was superb. Every scene and emotion was so well placed, and gave the film the sense of fear that the plot was giving.
Overall "Untraceable" is a must see of 2008, and is definately one for the "Saw" fans. My rating is 3.5/5
I thought Untraceable would be a much better movie. Once again, this movie was made to look good by a preview which seemed to show the good parts to make it seem like a more different storyline. The killer was known around half-way into the movie, which took away the mystery/suspense concept of it because it was just some random kid who's father died. I think the storyline and script could have been better beacuse it was a great movie concept, but the one who had the idea scripted it incorrectly. Overall, I was a bit disappointed and I would give Untraceable a 4/10.
Moderators, please make 0 an official rating. That way, we can give shite films like this the rating it so deserves. What a load of fucking shit this film was. If you watch this film and enjoy what you're seeing, you don't know horror films and/or are retarded. Fuck this movie!
Internet jargon aside, this movie was really well put together and the intensity of the deaths is great. Admitedly more of a thriller than a horror, but a fucking great thriller!!
What a terrible film. I expected it to be a great psychological-thriller movie. Unfortunately, even it was confused about its identity, and it went from being a psych thriller, to 'Saw' rip-off (actually, more like Saw IV, or Saw II. This isn't good enough to be continued a rip-off of such a great movie!), and back again. I just couldn't get into it, and even Diane Lane was a little off in this movie. Just terrible.
Posted By: MrHorrorfest at 3:35pm, October 7, 2008
This came out on my birthday. Granted I didn't see it, I seen Rambo insted.
But anyway... It's a good film.
Posted By: Protecious at 12:35pm, September 30, 2008
Better than I was expecting it to be, this is probably the best horror film relating to "dot com" movies and such, it's probably the smartest, with only a few others that come to mind like "fear dot com" and a few others, this is probably the smartest and most interesting of them all, the story and the characters are good, the violence is there and enough when necessary, suspensful, intense, but the whole time im watching it i felt there was a big something missing in it, without quite pinpointing it, it just felt something was missing, perhaps a bigger punch, or a more vicious intense villian when revealed, but when you find out who it is and his reasoning, your more understanding than hateful towards him.
Stuck somewhere between a polite Silence of the Lambs-esque thriller and the gory torture excess of the Saw series or Hostel, Untraceable just ends up feeling confused and surprisingly boring. Diane Lane is good, but she can't support a script that seems to think it's more clever than it actually is. There's nary a thrill to be found and you start to realize that this movie feels a lot like an unofficial remake of Dario Argento's The Card Player.
Not really worth your time or money. Wait for T.V.
Posted By: StrangeJorge at 12:18am, August 4, 2008
I think it was really goood and yeah its nothing original but at least its worth the rent so to the people who didnt liked it FUCK YOU.
For what the subject matter was, it wasn't bad at all. It didn't try to be anything more than a typical CSI episode - and it would have been one amazing episode.
Sadly they released it as a movie - and it was one bad movie. It gives a whole new meaning to the words "unoriginal" and "anticlimactic".
But that wasn't my main complaint. If that was the only thing wrong with the movie, it would have at least got 5 stars.
So what was wrong with it?
I don't hate PG-13 horror. I hate horror that is rated R and doesn't use any of that potential. This movie could have been rated PG-13, because they cut the camera away every single time something potentially gory could have happened. First, it stole Saw traps - BUT THEN it made them pathetic and tame. Bloody? There were maybe a few ounces in the opening.
I saw the new Indiana Jones movie before I rented and watched this movie. Indiana Jones had more gore, and it was rated "light PG-13".
Dear God, can no movie be gory anymore other than the Saw series? Is there no movie who makers who aren't afraid to do bloodbath? Because, seriously, folks, I've seen E-rated video games with more gore than this lame false advertisement for a non-bloody CSI episode.
I thought this would be a good movie. Than it turned out to be a torture. torture should have stopped after saw 3. Now theres saw 3+4 which both sucked and hostel which i did enjoy. Now this. this movie was allright. the ending was what excited me. i wont spoil the ending for you if you hsvent seen it. but if u want to see a good movie thats a horror or thriller go see cloverfield, or the eye.
THE HORROR HYPE METER Excited to see this movie? Rate it here!
