 RED does not mean "stop." GREEN does not mean "go." Click on the CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A ministry of the ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry) A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry. www.capalert.com/ Entertainment Media Analysis Report A service to His little ones through you in His name by His Word MAR28014  (2008), R [13-R*] (2hr 14min) The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet. We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family. Over 1200 analyses for parents, grandparents, pastors, youth leaders and more. |
  (a PayPal account is NOT required) OR (preferred) by Check or Money Order. The CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry. Donations to us are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE |
on what Hollywood feeds your kids. SUBSCRIBE (or unsubscribe) to our FREE text-only email version of these reports and our COMING SOON notices. |
  Christian Long Distance |
(While the Scriptural references are certainly not subjective, my commentary may be and sometimes is somewhat subjective.)
 Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Cohen / Pearl Productions, Lakeshore Entertainment Distribution (US): Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Director(s): Gregory Hoblit Producer(s): Andy Cohen, Hawk Koch, Gary Lucchesi, James McQuaide, Steven Pearl, Sarah Platt, Eric Reid, Tom Rosenberg, Richard S. Wright Screenplay: Robert Fyvolent, Mark Brinker, Allison Burnett Story: Robert Fyvolent, Mark Brinker Cinematography/Camera: Anastas N. Michos Music: Christopher Young Film Editing: Gregory Plotkin, David Rosenbloom Casting: Deborah Aquila, Jennifer L. Smith, Mary Tricia Wood Production Design: Paul Eads Art Direction: Michael L. Mayer Viewed on Sony Pictures Home Entertainment DVD Well, folks. Another analysis report to you some weeks after the film's release, useless to those who have, over the years, come to look to CAP analyses of new releases for help to determine the suitability of an unseen film. But at least this report is still useful to those who have waited for the film to come out on video. That is the way it is and will be until we can find enough funding for fulltime and dedicated operation. Would anyone like to help locate and secure funding for this nonprofit 501(c)(3) Christian ministry? Untraceable is an odd film. Odd in distribution of assaults on morality and wholesome ethics anyway. Out of more than 1200 analyses so far this film is the fourth 13-R. "13-R" means a film that earned a CAP final score equivalent to PG-13 films in the comparative baseline database but is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Let me explain. Untraceable is intensely gruesome and deeply graphic and is fully equivalent to "hardcore" R films in content found by the Wanton Violence/Crime (W) investigation area. It is pure evil in Wanton Violence/Crime. However, Untraceable is Maybe the following table will help put the content distribution into perspective. Each score and scoring range shown is out of a maximum of 100 points:  It is the refreshingly high scores in Sexual Immorality (S) and Drugs/Alcohol (D) that brought the final score (the average of the six investigation area scores) up out of the miry quicksand pit of "R." The writers simply did not include all the sexual and drug / alcohol / smoking content typical of the R stamp. Wonderful! But be not deceived by the "sheep's clothing" effect of the two comparatively high investigation area scores of 88. This film is as "R" as "R" can be in violence and gore and the "almost R" scores due to content found by Impudence/Hate (I) and Murder/Suicide (M) fortify its "R" stamp. The relatively high scores in two of the six investigation areas is what brought the final score up into the PG-13 scoring range. And what is the point to all this talk about the scoring? Since you've asked, I'll tell you. :-) The point to all this is to present yet again one of the great features of the CAP analysis model. The MPAA targets what they think is the most severe content and then applies their rating to the film based only on the most severe content. While this is good in its own right it is intensely incomplete in terms of the objective of the MPAA to "inform" parents. The CAP analysis model gives you objective scores in six areas and lets YOU decide for yourself the fitness of a film based on its content. The CAP analysis model makes no assumptions regarding age-appropriateness -- that is YOUR job, not the job of the MPAA. The CAP analysis model gives you, for example, awareness that Untraceable is intensely "R" in violence, almost "R" in language and other matters of impudence and/or hate and in murder and/or suicide, but is PG or G in everything else. The dark ingenuity of the writers is chilling. It is staggering what devilry the human mind can churn up. Giving intellectual birth to such monstrous ways to kill is odious. How many times and ways must we be told by extremely knowledgeable experts that this stuff plants ideas? But as a bit of harsh "reality", as the tag line alludes the story exposes the best accomplice to murder ever found ... us. FBI Agent Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) is in charge of cyber crime investigations in Portland, Oregon. She enters her first battle with the most sophisticated and intricate Internet crime ever discovered. The story opens with a man setting up to torture a cat to death. But that is not enough to give him his fix of evil. He broadcasts the cat's dying and death online. The perpetrator staples some glue paper such as fly paper to the floor of his basement then places a bowl of milk at one end of the glue paper. Then the creep releases a cat from the opposite end of the glue paper. It would not be likely that the cat would approach the bowl except across the glue paper. Of course, the cat becomes immobile on the glue paper. Over the course of a few days the cat finally dies while the cyber world watches. Millions of viewers. All visiting KillwithMe.com. Editor's Note: I suspect that all of our readers are quite capable of grasping this but there is no glue paper made that an adult cat such as the one in this film could not rip to shreds. The cat may have had to fight with getting the shreds of glue paper off if it but the cat most certainly would not be held immobile by it. And two staples holding it to the floor, expecting four tiny staple tines into flooring wood to be stronger than a cat's pull, expecting the paper itself to withstand tugs against the staples? Gimme a break. The writers missed the mark on this one. Another victim, a human man is bound and hung from scaffolding in the perpetrator's basement. The webpage title, "Killwithme" is gouged into the man's chest. This, too, is broadcast over cyber space. The bleeding is light and is not that spectacular but visitors are told that with each visit more blood anti-coagulant, probably sodium heparin, is pumped into the man's body. The more the visitors the more anti-coagulant is pumped into his body the more he bleeds. After millions of hits the man bleeds to death. Another victim is fitted with concrete galoshes. Now, with his feet anchored the perpetrator turns on some heat lamps and broadcasts this on the web informing everyone that with each visit the heat is turned up. After several million hits the man burns to death. So, who is the real murderer? Is it the perpetrator? Or is it each of the visitors to the website? Well!? The perpetrator did not do the actual killing, he just set it up for others to "pull the trigger." Indeed, it is the visitors who knowingly increased the drug flow, turned up the heat and so on. Every one of them is an accomplice to murder! Every one of them had a piece of the murder. The story made it appear that the visitors felt it doesn't matter that their visits were killing the subjects. They wanted to see! What an exposé this film is of what Hollywood seems think is the typical character of gore website visitors! Hollywood may actually be right in this case. The mentality of some the email we have received supports such an imprression. A number of other web crimes are mentioned. One of which was child stalking as fellow agent Griffin Dowd (Colin Hanks) lures a 52 year old man who thinks Dowd is a babysitter. This film is not a source of quality entertainment. Though one of the best written stories with the smoothest continuity and the most seamless weave of subplots I have ever seen, Untraceable is ugly. It is downright black with ugliness. Lane appears to be an aging actress trying to perpetuate her presence in the big screen world. The film felt as though the character she portrayed supported her more than she supported the character. Support cast member, Billy Burke who played Portland Police Detective Eric Box seemed to give more thespian energy and focus than Lane. Marsh's daughter, Annie (Perla Haney-Jardine) even seemed less aware of the camera's presence than Lane. From My Dog Skip to Under the Tuscan Sun to Jumper, Lane has had an illustrious career but seems to be getting tired. But that is just my opinion and has nothing to do with the scoring earned by Untraceable. Wanton Violence/Crime (W) - Zero out of 100 "... intensely gruesome and deeply graphic" just about says it all. Little more could be said to describe the violence content of Untraceable but I'll try. Assault with tazer to abduct, repeatedly. Torture of the unimaginable kind. Seared body. Body dissolving in sulfuric acid. Gore. Human remains. Gunfire killing with seeing the bullets do their damage on a human body. Words just don't do the job. Such evil is portrayed that it is likely someone will be influenced by it. [Prov. 3:31, Prov. 16:29] Such violence and portrayal of vengeance entices. [Prov. 3:31-32] And the cunning and genius of evasion of the bad guy seems to lead the viewer into thinking he'll never get caught ... or maybe should he get caught? God knew what He was saying in Eccl. 8:11: that such behavior sets in men's minds schemes to do wrong when the bad guy "gets away with it" for so long. Please look to the listing in the Findings/Scoring section before deciding whether to subject yourself to such "entertainment." Impudence/Hate (I) - 55 out of 100 Eighteen uses of the three/four letter words, including the most foul of the foul words twice, is just about the only content that caused the loss of about half of the 100 starting points in Impudence/Hate. But that is 18 too many according to God's Word. Sexual Immorality (S) - 88 out of 100 If it were not for the woman in a shower, a "gay" and child porn innuendo and a couple other issues of sexually oriented content, this film would have earned a score of 100 out of 100 in Sexual Immorality. Drugs/Alcohol (D) - 88 out of 100 The only notations of Alcohol/Drug use was one instance of drinking and one of forced drug injection. If these portrayals had been left out the film would have earned a Drugs/Alcohol investigation area score of 100 out of 100. Offense to God (O) - 73 out of 100 The lust for viewing of killing and death and four uses of God's name in vain, once with the four letter expletive drained about 25% of the starting 100 points in this investigation area. Murder/Suicide (M) - 55 out of 100 Horrendous murders by slow torture of at least three people plus multiple views of an extremely graphic suicide by gunfire evaporated nearly half of the starting 100 points in Murder/Suicide. A note about the suicide. It could not have been more realistic if it were an actual suicide. It is not something to be viewed by the impressionable. If so, it will plant thoughts. Unclean thoughts which may be indelible ... and enticing to the deeply troubled. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ] or bold. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page. CHAPTER/VERSE ***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry*** As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie. |
 |
 Wanton Violence/Crime (W) - SCORE out of 100 Impudence/Hate (I) - SCORE out of 100 Sexual Immorality (S) - SCORE out of 100 Drugs/Alcohol (D) - SCORE out of 100 Offense to God (O) - SCORE out of 100 Murder/Suicide (M) - SCORE out of 100 |
| There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings. |
|
Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you. Prayerfully, we will provide you with some of the most revealing commentary and investigative reporting you have ever read. In the name of Jesus: Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God. Tom Carder President ChildCare Action Project (CAP): Christian Analysis of American Culture 100% dependent on your tax-deductible financial support |  |
Christian Long Distance |
|
We exist only by your tax-deductible donations. PLEASE  Features PayPal! You do NOT need an account to donate. |
