list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Untraceable on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Untraceable/290405/default.aspx Title: Untraceable
Year: 2008
Director: Gregory Hoblit
Plot: Faced with the most baffling and menacing case of her life, FBI agent and cybercop Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) must race against the clock to stop a deadly Internet predator in his tracks -- before more innocent lives are extinguished. So begins director Gregory Hoblit's (Primal Fear) heart-stopping thriller Untraceable. The psychopath at hand is far from an ordinary villain; a megalomaniacal showman with a flair for sadistic braggadocio and astonishing technical knowhow, his expertise makes it infinitely more difficult for Marsh to track him down. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 20
Number of Lists: 7
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:09:59 GMTUntraceable2008Gregory HoblitFaced with the most baffling and menacing case of her life, FBI agent and cybercop Jennifer Marsh (<a href="/players/P____40350/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Diane Lane</a>) must race against the clock to stop a deadly Internet predator in his tracks -- before more innocent lives are extinguished. So begins director <a href="/players/P____94527/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gregory Hoblit</a>'s (<a href=/films/93242/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Primal Fear</a>) heart-stopping thriller Untraceable. The psychopath at hand is far from an ordinary villain; a megalomaniacal showman with a flair for sadistic braggadocio and astonishing technical knowhow, his expertise makes it infinitely more difficult for Marsh to track him down. ~ Nathan Southern, All Movie Guide20Tag Target (>10)752http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s290405.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Untraceable/290405/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/dj4our/archive/2008/12/1/37827.aspx Post By: dj4our
Post To: dj4our Blog
Post Date: 12/1/2008 8:56:31 PM
Body: written by: Mark Brinker, Allison Burnett & Robert Fyvolent produced by: Andy Cohen, Hawk Koch, Gary Lucchesi, Steven Pearl & Tom Rosenberg directed by: Gregory Hoblit Rated R for grisly violence and torture, and some language. 100 min. Untraceable? I don't think so. You shouldn't be able to predict every turn while watching a movie with such a title. I can't imagine anyone who couldn't follow such a tepid plot in this day and age of CSI, Bones and Cold Case. That's basically what this is combines with the cinechock of the "Saw" movies. was there anyone watching this who didn't see where the story was going? To be sure, there are worse movies out there but this was crud. Too bad cuz the cast isn't to blame, they're not that bad really. It's what they're given to work with. If anything, they are to blame for reading and saying yes to such a sucky script. The story is set in dour and rainy Portland, Oregan (too bad, I thought that place was supposed to be nice) where FBI cybercrime profiler, Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) spends her nights trapping pathetic internet scumbags with her partner, Griffin (Colin Hanks). A new site is discovered called www.killwithme.com that features a live streaming video where victims are killed based on the number of hits received, the faster the hits the quicker the death. Of course, like a traffic accident on the side of the road, millions of people log on, hastening the victims' violent deaths. It woulda been more interesting if the writers focused on the phenomena of gawkers and how these viewers actually became murderers themselves by visiting this site. A unique perspective would be how to legally hold these viewers accountable but instead we're given shots of Diane Lane in the shower. So, cybercop Marsh, pieces together this so-called mystery at great risk to herself and her family. Isn't that always the case. Why do these protagonists always have to have family? I'd like it if the protagonist was someone that everyone hates, even her family. Ah well. Marsh knows her job and she's a loyal single mom and all but she's just not that interesting. Lane winds up looking tired throughout the film, as her character tries to isolate the location of the killer who racks up a curious roster of victims. With each gruesome execution committed online, the audience grows more impatient for the next thrill, leaving the FBI little time to solve the case. The film tries to teeter on "torture porn" thrills but thankfully it only shows the kinda tortue you might see on any similar TV show. I got a kick outta the film's need for boring exposition that spells out terms like "LOL" or "ROTFL" possibly catering to those who aren't familiar with online lingo and "clever" internet shorthand. The killer turns out to be some pretty-faced kid (Joseph Cross, looking like an X-Men reject) wanting to get even and perhaps teach the world a lesson. What's his deal? He's upset, disturbed and unhinged about live-footage of his father's suicide being saturated online. What's bizarre is this killer is revealed not even half way into the film. Where's the suspense in that? I was never sold that this klid was some brilliant criminal sicko, once he's revealed I just wanted to slap him and sent to bed without dinner. It's yet another interested thread that is left frayed and unexplored. Director Gregory Hoblit ("Primal Fear," "Fracture") helps Lane sell the suspense of the script but not by much. He has her spend most of the movie wet (either in the rain or the aforementuiioned shower) and furrowed with a serious look plastered on her face. Too bad Hoblit is so lazy with the camera in that he has to hold on certain characters or locations which blatantly gives away to who and where something will happen. It's obvious that the writes were going reaching for an opportunity to showcase the freedom of internet media and expression that today's technology provides but it's just too obvious making it downright insulting. Every shot was completely leading and predicatble. And the screenplay? Just lame. A better title would be Unwatchable. Now THAT'S a movie I'd watch just to see if the title was true, kinda like those online viewer/killers.
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:56:31 GMTdj4ourdj4our Blog12/1/2008 8:56:31 PMwritten by: Mark Brinker, Allison Burnett &amp; Robert Fyvolent produced by: Andy Cohen, Hawk Koch, Gary Lucchesi, Steven Pearl &amp; Tom Rosenberg directed by: Gregory Hoblit Rated R for grisly violence and torture, and some language. 100 min. Untraceable? I don't think so. You shouldn't be able to predict every turn while watching a movie with such a title. I can't imagine anyone who couldn't follow such a tepid plot in this day and age of CSI, Bones and Cold Case. That's basically what this is combines with the cinechock of the "Saw" movies. was there anyone watching this who didn't see where the story was going? To be sure, there are worse movies out there but this was crud. Too bad cuz the cast isn't to blame, they're not that bad really. It's what they're given to work with. If anything, they are to blame for reading and saying yes to such a sucky script. The story is set in dour and rainy Portland, Oregan (too bad, I thought that place was supposed to be nice) where FBI cybercrime profiler, Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) spends her nights trapping pathetic internet scumbags with her partner, Griffin (Colin Hanks). A new site is discovered called www.killwithme.com that features a live streaming video where victims are killed based on the number of hits received, the faster the hits the quicker the death. Of course, like a traffic accident on the side of the road, millions of people log on, hastening the victims' violent deaths. It woulda been more interesting if the writers focused on the phenomena of gawkers and how these viewers actually became murderers themselves by visiting this site. A unique perspective would be how to legally hold these viewers accountable but instead we're given shots of Diane Lane in the shower. So, cybercop Marsh, pieces together this so-called mystery at great risk to herself and her family. Isn't that always the case. Why do these protagonists always have to have family? I'd like it if the protagonist was someone that everyone hates, even her family. Ah well. Marsh knows her job and she's a loyal single mom and all but she's just not that interesting. Lane winds up looking tired throughout the film, as her character tries to isolate the location of the killer who racks up a curious roster of victims. With each gruesome execution committed online, the audience grows more impatient for the next thrill, leaving the FBI little time to solve the case. The film tries to teeter on "torture porn" thrills but thankfully it only shows the kinda tortue you might see on any similar TV show. I got a kick outta the film's need for boring exposition that spells out terms like "LOL" or "ROTFL" possibly catering to those who aren't familiar with online lingo and "clever" internet shorthand. The killer turns out to be some pretty-faced kid (Joseph Cross, looking like an X-Men reject) wanting to get even and perhaps teach the world a lesson. What's his deal? He's upset, disturbed and unhinged about live-footage of his father's suicide being saturated online. What's bizarre is this killer is revealed not even half way into the film. Where's the suspense in that? I was never sold that this klid was some brilliant criminal sicko, once he's revealed I just wanted to slap him and sent to bed without dinner. It's yet another interested thread that is left frayed and unexplored. Director Gregory Hoblit ("Primal Fear," "Fracture") helps Lane sell the suspense of the script but not by much. He has her spend most of the movie wet (either in the rain or the aforementuiioned shower) and furrowed with a serious look plastered on her face. Too bad Hoblit is so lazy with the camera in that he has to hold on certain characters or locations which blatantly gives away to who and where something will happen. It's obvious that the writes were going reaching for an opportunity to showcase the freedom of internet media and expression that today's technology provides but it's just too obvious making it downright insulting. Every shot was completely leading and predicatble. And the screenplay? Just lame. A better title would be Unwatchable. Now THAT'S a movie I'd watch just to see if the title was true, kinda like those online viewer/killers. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30687.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 3:08:03 PM
Body: The following review of "Untraceable" includes spoilers for the film. Proceed at your own risk. Every couple of years, film tackles a perceived real life problem and exploits it. I´m not talking about wars or social causes; I´m talking technology or business. Remember "Antitrust," the 2001 warning against computer companies? Or how about "Cellular" and its near preaching about the potential of cell phones? Well, here comes "Untraceable," a movie in the same vein as the others: the use of tech against the populace, a warning of sorts…and ten years too late. In the cyber crimes unit of the FBI, Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane, a dead ringer for Mariska Hargitay) gets a tip about a new website featuring, at first, a dead cat. As human beings begin to disappear-and die-on the site, the stakes are raised. But how do you find a computer wizard who is playing in his own backyard? I´m not quite sure what ran through the heads of the five credited writers of "Untraceable" which led a promising story into a dark abyss of nothingness in the last ten minutes. Maybe they ran out of time to craft a proper finale. Maybe something got cut in the editing room. I don´t know. But whatever did happen, it manages to suck the life out of the entire production. As if it weren´t bad enough most of the movie feels like behind the scenes on "To Catch a Predator," we´re introduced to our main character during an investigation. An investigation which takes a maximum of five minutes, including exposition. An investigation where Marsh pinpoints an identity thief, calls the local police and then correctly guesses there is a youngster in the house. Um, hello? Granted, she´s good…but that good? If she was, then this movie would have been over in half an hour. But this beginning is something everyone forgets about, too, in this thinly veiled "Just Say No to Computer Crime" flick. They even jettison proper police work. When you know the identity of two different victims, the FIRST thing you do is try to find a connection. Friends, family, work, associates, interests-you get the idea. For whatever reason, no one in the crack Portland FBI office thinks of this until it´s entirely too late. Wanna talk even more top notch police work? Marsh, apparently the lead investigator in the cyber crimes unit, was her home connected to a wireless network. Her home computer has access to work files. Both of which get hacked, unsurprisingly. Her actions, words and experiences don´t mesh together as they should through the movie, this being but one example. One thing to watch out for in "Untraceable" are small throwaway lines, characters or scenes. Keep an eye (and ear) on Melanie as well as two detectives looking around Jennifer´s garage. In the first instance, a trick leads directly to a fellow agent´s death. (Does anyone really buy the voice Griffin Dowd hears on his phone is a real person? Of course it´s fake and a trap.) The latter, sadly, thinks it is being coy in setting up the climax, yet is so obviously transparent as nothing more than a story point it´s laughable. (Tell me director Gregory Hoblit doesn´t make the finale so easy to see coming a third grader could do it. I dare you.) Some people will compare the bloody "Saw" franchise to this film and, in certain respects, they´d be right to. For as many inventive and creative deaths are featured in the horror films, "Untraceable" comes up with an idea they haven´t thought of yet: the more live stream views there are, the worse the punishment gets. For instance, with every passing internet viewer, sulfuric acid is added to a tub of water, burning a man. Or some others which are too delicious to spoil here. But, in the end, even "Saw" has a better rationale for killing than the dopey teenager in "Untraceable." Jigsaw, in his heart of hearts, wants his victims to be better people, see the error of their ways and repent. Owen Reilly (Joseph Cross) doesn´t have as altruistic a reason: he wants people to suffer online because his father´s suicide was replayed online for everyone to see. So he kills people associated with that event. And some others who have nothing at all to do with it…except tangentially. As he puts it, Marsh and her colleagues allowed his father´s name to be smeared in the virtual world and made him relive the horror every day. I felt like standing up and asking him if he ever heard of the First Amendment. Ya know, freedom of speech and so on. Aside from the law, the reporters and news station covering and airing the suicide (not to mention the subsequent pirating of the footage) did not kill his father; Owen is killing people. One of the great joys in cop shows is figuring out which of the people we´ve met on screen is the killer, following the connections until we hit the inevitable conclusion. Here, we don´t meet Owen for a fair while into the action and we can´t connect the dots until the cops do. Instead of being able to "play along" in the hunt, we have to be by standards, passive instead of active. And that´s actively boring. "Untraceable" feels half baked, a good idea buried in 30 minutes of filler story material. Diane Lane and the rest of the cast do as good a job as they can be expected to do, considering the holes in the story. She presents herself as a take charge woman unafraid of battling anyone over any issue. In the tender moments with her daughter (of which there are too few), she manages to balance intensity with genuine love. The directing isn´t even a problem, though if we had to see another aerial view of Portland, I was going to scream. One is enough for any movie, but we have at least two, if not three. Long, nearly nauseating looks at downtown Portland, seemingly downtrodden and broken. I can´t in any conscious recommend "Untraceable." Most of its misfires occur late in the narrative, yet they cast a pall over the entire production. I can imagine this being the first draft of the screenplay, but shooting material? There are still kinks to be worked out. As such, it gets a 4 out of 10.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:08:03 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 3:08:03 PMThe following review of "Untraceable" includes spoilers for the film. Proceed at your own risk. Every couple of years, film tackles a perceived real life problem and exploits it. I&acute;m not talking about wars or social causes; I&acute;m talking technology or business. Remember "Antitrust," the 2001 warning against computer companies? Or how about "Cellular" and its near preaching about the potential of cell phones? Well, here comes "Untraceable," a movie in the same vein as the others: the use of tech against the populace, a warning of sorts&hellip;and ten years too late. In the cyber crimes unit of the FBI, Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane, a dead ringer for Mariska Hargitay) gets a tip about a new website featuring, at first, a dead cat. As human beings begin to disappear-and die-on the site, the stakes are raised. But how do you find a computer wizard who is playing in his own backyard? I&acute;m not quite sure what ran through the heads of the five credited writers of "Untraceable" which led a promising story into a dark abyss of nothingness in the last ten minutes. Maybe they ran out of time to craft a proper finale. Maybe something got cut in the editing room. I don&acute;t know. But whatever did happen, it manages to suck the life out of the entire production. As if it weren&acute;t bad enough most of the movie feels like behind the scenes on "To Catch a Predator," we&acute;re introduced to our main character during an investigation. An investigation which takes a maximum of five minutes, including exposition. An investigation where Marsh pinpoints an identity thief, calls the local police and then correctly guesses there is a youngster in the house. Um, hello? Granted, she&acute;s good&hellip;but that good? If she was, then this movie would have been over in half an hour. But this beginning is something everyone forgets about, too, in this thinly veiled "Just Say No to Computer Crime" flick. They even jettison proper police work. When you know the identity of two different victims, the FIRST thing you do is try to find a connection. Friends, family, work, associates, interests-you get the idea. For whatever reason, no one in the crack Portland FBI office thinks of this until it&acute;s entirely too late. Wanna talk even more top notch police work? Marsh, apparently the lead investigator in the cyber crimes unit, was her home connected to a wireless network. Her home computer has access to work files. Both of which get hacked, unsurprisingly. Her actions, words and experiences don&acute;t mesh together as they should through the movie, this being but one example. One thing to watch out for in "Untraceable" are small throwaway lines, characters or scenes. Keep an eye (and ear) on Melanie as well as two detectives looking around Jennifer&acute;s garage. In the first instance, a trick leads directly to a fellow agent&acute;s death. (Does anyone really buy the voice Griffin Dowd hears on his phone is a real person? Of course it&acute;s fake and a trap.) The latter, sadly, thinks it is being coy in setting up the climax, yet is so obviously transparent as nothing more than a story point it&acute;s laughable. (Tell me director Gregory Hoblit doesn&acute;t make the finale so easy to see coming a third grader could do it. I dare you.) Some people will compare the bloody "Saw" franchise to this film and, in certain respects, they&acute;d be right to. For as many inventive and creative deaths are featured in the horror films, "Untraceable" comes up with an idea they haven&acute;t thought of yet: the more live stream views there are, the worse the punishment gets. For instance, with every passing internet viewer, sulfuric acid is added to a tub of water, burning a man. Or some others which are too delicious to spoil here. But, in the end, even "Saw" has a better rationale for killing than the dopey teenager in "Untraceable." Jigsaw, in his heart of hearts, wants his victims to be better people, see the error of their ways and repent. Owen Reilly (Joseph Cross) doesn&acute;t have as altruistic a reason: he wants people to suffer online because his father&acute;s suicide was replayed online for everyone to see. So he kills people associated with that event. And some others who have nothing at all to do with it&hellip;except tangentially. As he puts it, Marsh and her colleagues allowed his father&acute;s name to be smeared in the virtual world and made him relive the horror every day. I felt like standing up and asking him if he ever heard of the First Amendment. Ya know, freedom of speech and so on. Aside from the law, the reporters and news station covering and airing the suicide (not to mention the subsequent pirating of the footage) did not kill his father; Owen is killing people. One of the great joys in cop shows is figuring out which of the people we&acute;ve met on screen is the killer, following the connections until we hit the inevitable conclusion. Here, we don&acute;t meet Owen for a fair while into the action and we can&acute;t connect the dots until the cops do. Instead of being able to "play along" in the hunt, we have to be by standards, passive instead of active. And that&acute;s actively boring. "Untraceable" feels half baked, a good idea buried in 30 minutes of filler story material. Diane Lane and the rest of the cast do as good a job as they can be expected to do, considering the holes in the story. She presents herself as a take charge woman unafraid of battling anyone over any issue. In the tender moments with her daughter (of which there are too few), she manages to balance intensity with genuine love. The directing isn&acute;t even a problem, though if we had to see another aerial view of Portland, I was going to scream. One is enough for any movie, but we have at least two, if not three. Long, nearly nauseating looks at downtown Portland, seemingly downtrodden and broken. I can&acute;t in any conscious recommend "Untraceable." Most of its misfires occur late in the narrative, yet they cast a pall over the entire production. I can imagine this being the first draft of the screenplay, but shooting material? There are still kinks to be worked out. As such, it gets a 4 out of 10. http://www.spout.com/blogs/scswngr/archive/2008/5/10/28439.aspx Post By: scswngr
Post To: Film Obsessed
Post Date: 5/10/2008 6:11:39 AM
Body: Suprisingly, I liked the film Untraceable. Please refrain from laughing, no really, stop now. I too was critical going into a film about an "internet terrorist", as the film so bluntly puts it, but Untraceable doesn't try to be strikingly original and its refreshing. Instead, it is a film that very easily just lets you go, feeds you enough information to keep you interested, and then proceeds to the next step. While watching a film about the dark side of internet voyeurism you quickly become the become just that, a voyeur waiting to see the cleverness of the next killing. I could have done without the preachy rant at the end of the film by the criminal of the story, Owen, played by the masterfully cast Joseph Cross. Though Untraceable questions how far we are willing to go as a society much like the films Running Man and The Condemned did. Are we truly ready so detached from violence in our society? Don't we just want to have a peak at that car chase on the freeway, that dirty video of Paris, that crash site, or that murder? Sure you do. So go have a quick peak at Untraceable, its not real, and I promise it won't kill you!
]]>Sat, 10 May 2008 10:11:39 GMTscswngrFilm Obsessed5/10/2008 6:11:39 AMSuprisingly, I liked the film Untraceable. Please refrain from laughing, no really, stop now. I too was critical going into a film about an "internet terrorist", as the film so bluntly puts it, but Untraceable doesn't try to be strikingly original and its refreshing. Instead, it is a film that very easily just lets you go, feeds you enough information to keep you interested, and then proceeds to the next step. While watching a film about the dark side of internet voyeurism you quickly become the become just that, a voyeur waiting to see the cleverness of the next killing. I could have done without the preachy rant at the end of the film by the criminal of the story, Owen, played by the masterfully cast Joseph Cross. Though Untraceable questions how far we are willing to go as a society much like the films Running Man and The Condemned did. Are we truly ready so detached from violence in our society? Don't we just want to have a peak at that car chase on the freeway, that dirty video of Paris, that crash site, or that murder? Sure you do. So go have a quick peak at Untraceable, its not real, and I promise it won't kill you! http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/2/29/25704.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 2/29/2008 11:01:35 AM
Body: Facebook and Seesmic have banned a promotion for the international rollout of the Diane Lane film Untraceable. The movie basically bombed when it was dumped here in late January, but because people on the internet love nothing better than making fun of mainstream cultural stuff that pretends to understand the internet, it garnered a bit of snarky blog attention for its ridiculous premise alone. Lane stars as some kind of FBI cyberterrorism analyst who is charged with stopping the mastermind behind KillWithMe.com, who pledges to murder captive victims when the site reaches a quota of page views. Totally misguided attempt to plumb the new web culture as dressing for the same old thriller, and thus a sure sign that Web 2.0 is dead? Or a genius satire of the internet publishing industry? Nobody cared either way, I guess??????the film has so far failed to make back its production budget domestically. Which means its international box office is key. Which explains why Universal, desperate to make some noise, would hire a firm to essentially replicate KillWithMe.com on social networks. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:01:35 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog2/29/2008 11:01:35 AMFacebook and Seesmic have banned a promotion for the international rollout of the Diane Lane film Untraceable. The movie basically bombed when it was dumped here in late January, but because people on the internet love nothing better than making fun of mainstream cultural stuff that pretends to understand the internet, it garnered a bit of snarky blog attention for its ridiculous premise alone. Lane stars as some kind of FBI cyberterrorism analyst who is charged with stopping the mastermind behind KillWithMe.com, who pledges to murder captive victims when the site reaches a quota of page views. Totally misguided attempt to plumb the new web culture as dressing for the same old thriller, and thus a sure sign that Web 2.0 is dead? Or a genius satire of the internet publishing industry? Nobody cared either way, I guess??????the film has so far failed to make back its production budget domestically. Which means its international box office is key. Which explains why Universal, desperate to make some noise, would hire a firm to essentially replicate KillWithMe.com on social networks. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/29/25703.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/29/2008 11:01:26 AM
Body: Facebook and Seesmic have banned a promotion for the international rollout of the Diane Lane film Untraceable. The movie basically bombed when it was dumped here in late January, but because people on the internet love nothing better than making fun of mainstream cultural stuff that pretends to understand the internet, it garnered a bit of snarky blog attention for its ridiculous premise alone. Lane stars as some kind of FBI cyberterrorism analyst who is charged with stopping the mastermind behind KillWithMe.com, who pledges to murder captive victims when the site reaches a quota of page views. Totally misguided attempt to plumb the new web culture as dressing for the same old thriller, and thus a sure sign that Web 2.0 is dead? Or a genius satire of the internet publishing industry? Nobody cared either way, I guess??????the film has so far failed to make back its production budget domestically. Which means its international box office is key. Which explains why Universal, desperate to make some noise, would hire a firm to essentially replicate KillWithMe.com on social networks. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:01:26 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/29/2008 11:01:26 AMFacebook and Seesmic have banned a promotion for the international rollout of the Diane Lane film Untraceable. The movie basically bombed when it was dumped here in late January, but because people on the internet love nothing better than making fun of mainstream cultural stuff that pretends to understand the internet, it garnered a bit of snarky blog attention for its ridiculous premise alone. Lane stars as some kind of FBI cyberterrorism analyst who is charged with stopping the mastermind behind KillWithMe.com, who pledges to murder captive victims when the site reaches a quota of page views. Totally misguided attempt to plumb the new web culture as dressing for the same old thriller, and thus a sure sign that Web 2.0 is dead? Or a genius satire of the internet publishing industry? Nobody cared either way, I guess??????the film has so far failed to make back its production budget domestically. Which means its international box office is key. Which explains why Universal, desperate to make some noise, would hire a firm to essentially replicate KillWithMe.com on social networks. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suicide/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuicide
Number of films tagged: 1828

Number of people who tagged: 80

Number of times used: 185

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:40:50 GMT182880185Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mother/MemberTagFilms.aspxmother
Number of films tagged: 2522

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 152

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT252253152Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/predictable/MemberTagFilms.aspxpredictable
Number of films tagged: 40

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 52

]]>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:32:00 GMT403752Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/investigation/MemberTagFilms.aspxinvestigation
Number of films tagged: 5883

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 124

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:28 GMT588329124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/technology/MemberTagFilms.aspxtechnology
Number of films tagged: 688

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 54

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT6882354Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fbi/MemberTagFilms.aspxfbi
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 54

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:51:04 GMT492054Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stalking/MemberTagFilms.aspxstalking
Number of films tagged: 490

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 35

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:40 GMT4901835Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/internet/MemberTagFilms.aspxinternet
Number of films tagged: 219

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 29

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:41 GMT2191329Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/execution/MemberTagFilms.aspxexecution
Number of films tagged: 560

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 28

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:05 GMT560828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/federalagent/MemberTagFilms.aspxfederalagent
Number of films tagged: 176

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:01:37 GMT17666Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/website/MemberTagFilms.aspxwebsite
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 6

]]>Mon, 04 May 2009 03:38:08 GMT5546Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fbi-federal-bureau-of-in/MemberTagFilms.aspxfbi-federal-bureau-of-in
Number of films tagged: 385

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 5

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT38535Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cyber-investigators/MemberTagFilms.aspxcyber-investigators
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Thu, 15 May 2008 06:19:03 GMT111Tag