Strangers On The Internets Untr aceable is an effective thriller. It is not a good film. It is not a bad film. Some have cited it's so-called "senseless violence" and pandering to cheap thrills. It does these things well. Those that would object on this basis can't handle the fact that this "what-if" scenario accurately describes today's society and the wild west nature of the internets. I doubt that most of these critics would object to cla**ics such as Poe's The Pit and The Pendulum, Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or Jonathan Demme's Oscar winning The Silence Of The Lambs (the list goes on). Yet Untraceable confronts these same fears and horrors, in the age of the internet. My complaint is that it does it without the artistry of the cla**ics. If you've seen the trailers (SPOILER ALERT!) you know that the premise of this filim is that someone is killing people and streaming it live on the internet. The rate of these gruesome deaths depends upon how many "hits" he gets on his website. Judging by the size of his audience you would think that he could become one of those internet billionaires just from the ad income alone. How many people went home and "googled" his site? How many tried this on their mobiles while the movie was playing? (Internet ad income is just another unsettling new development in society. Why do you think Google has such a high market value?) I suppose the "moral" critics of Untraceable never stopped to look at a tragic motor crash. Their ancestors never attended a public execution or attended a Christians vs. the lions competition? Does watching it on the internet make today's voyeurs more twisted than them? If you still can't wrap your minds around this, consider the words of Denis Leary. "Life is hard. Wear a helmet."