Robert J. Maxwell At least this made-for-TV movie wasn't shot in Canada, although it might as well have been. It does the kind of job most TV movies do -- a straightforward, almost documentary, retelling of the incidents with enough fictional human interest scenes to turn it into something more than a search for Colonel Plum and his pepperbox revolver.I suppose most of us remember the killing spree around Washington, DC, in the early 90s. It was in the news every night. President Bush made a public comment on it. Two African-Americans drove around town in a Chevrolet with a hole cut through the trunk. The older man, played by Bobby Hosea, exerts some sort of charismatic spell over his younger disciple, Trent Cameron. Hosea drives the car, giving orders like "Clear your mind," while Cameron snuggles in the trunk and sights his Bushmaster rifle through the circular opening.It begins with a bang. Actually three or four bangs, discreetly done. No squibs explode. The victim looks surprised, stumbles a bit, and drops. Some victims we don't see at all.Both Hosea and Cameron are quite good, given the material they have to work with. Charles Dutton is the main figure, the police chief, built like a tank, speaking slowly, deliberately, emphatically to the TV cameras. He doesn't really bring much to the party. He gets to look exhausted and once or twice his eyes brim with tears. There is a sentimental coda that is supposed to make the audience sight with relief and gratitude. I'm afraid I dislike these tacked-on happy endings. It's like the beaten boxer, glimpsing his girl friend in the crowd, then hauling himself to his feet and clobbering his opponent to the canvas.Someone complained that the film didn't answer any important questions, such as, "Why did those two guys go around shooting people." I'm glad no answer was provided because at this stage of the game there is none to be had. The vast majority of homicides involve people who know one another. It's perfectly understandable because the victims are people who know us, whose opinions we care about, and who are in a position to hurt us. Killing a complete stranger has a preposterous quality. What's going on inside the heads of people like this, to whom shooting someone at random seems only a step or two beyond blasting a traffic sign on a rural road? Nobody knows. And the usual attempts at explanation -- abused as a child, traumatized by a war, grew up in a dysfunctional family -- are as ridiculous as the murders themselves.

MJbites As someone from Montgomery County, I have to say I found it shocking when I heard this movie was going to be made. The event had happened so recently. It was just three years ago that I sat in traffic for 3 hours while they checked cars all over the beltway and beyond, and just three years ago when every local landmark I knew was suddenly a target.The USA cable television network had a compelling story and it rode script full throttle into a brick wall. Even if the idea of profiting from a shooting spree that terrorized thousands and shocked millions wasn't morally repugnant, USA's D.C. Sniper: 23 Days of Fear, a movie adaptation of the events that unfolded three years ago in Montgomery County, just shouldn't have gone forward.To begin with, the network, strange as this may sound, had very little material to work with. The two snipers were, of course, unknown at the time the crimes went down, so an overriding sense of mystery and panic is left to take center stage instead of any person. The tale lacks a hero, leaving Ex-Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose, the face of the good guys on the news, as the only logical choice for a main character. However, his bumbling performances in front of the media and his limited ability to affect the course of events make also make Moose, played by Charles S. Dutton (A Time to Kill, Alien 3), a weak focal point for the movie.Still, USA trudged along, and Moose was indeed made the main character. His fiery attitude behind the news cameras shows a different side of Moose than the public saw in 2002, though whether or not the depiction is accurate is anyone's guess, as Dutton has reportedly never met Moose. The two do resemble one another, though Moose looks like Dutton after going on the Subway diet. The failings of the movie really can't be placed on Dutton's shoulders, because he did all he possibly could have done with such a weak role.County Executive Doug Duncan, portrayed by Jay O. Sanders (Glory, Angels in the Outfield), gets thrown in as a secondary main character. But his involvement in the investigation seems minimal. In the movie, Duncan is relegated to advising Moose, though his main purpose seems to be interacting with his family to show what home life has become as a result of the attacks. In this capacity, he's a dud. Duncan's family is protected by the police, so his experience would have been far different than the majority of Montgomery County residents, myself included. Perhaps if the film had focused on a fictional character in the middle of the chaos, the audience would have gotten a more true-to-life sense of what happened.Director Tom McLoughlin, the writer and director of the Friday the 13th: The Series, makes some odd decisions in the film. McLoughlin attempts to vilify the media in several scenes, incorporating the tarot card leak and other seemingly disastrous blows various news affiliates inflicted on the investigation into the plot. The idea is not unique, as many movies show the news networks as vicious, amoral organizations. However, the WAY he presents the idea IS unique and rather two-dimensional. All the no-good, awful, rotten, mean things that, in McLoughlin's mind, the media represents are embodied by one man who pesters the police for and then leaks information. His over-the-top performance comes complete with sinister grins and an uncanny ability to make information materialize out of nowhere.The film does take an interesting look at the relationship between John Muhammad, played by Bobby Hosea, and John Lee Malvo, played by Trent Cameron. This is the one aspect of the film that's genuinely new and interesting to watch. The movie shows Malvo as a complete subordinate to Muhammad, willing to take whatever orders his "father" gives him. The panic that crosses Malvo's face each time he feels out of control of a situation is quite believable, and Muhammad's weird mixture of fatherly pride and calculated cruelty is strangely creepy to observe.Still, this one somewhat bright spot doesn't make up for the rest of the problems in the movie. While the various crime scenes and characters all bear a passable resemblance to the real places and people (I've seen them all), minor errors plague the movie, sometimes making watching difficult to those who know the story well. At one point, Duncan is referred to as "mayor" despite the fact that he holds no such office.The movie is punctuated by a horrendous concluding scene wherein Moose does his best to defend his actions, and the producers try to put a positive spin on an unspectacular ending when Moose announces the boy who got shot early on isn't going to die. (Just an FYI: Moose later wrote a book about the events and was forced out of his position because of it) It's hard to make a movie based on a crime spree that really doesn't lend itself well to character development. It's even harder to find sympathy for a network that exploits tragedy.

drewster-34 How sick has the media become these days? If the USA network were actually serious about making a movie to ACCURATLY tell the story of the sniper shootings, and not to make higher ratings I wouldn't have a problem. But its quite clear to every mind in the United States and abroad, that the purpose of this movie is to make lots of money over a terrible event that is too close to be immoralized in a movie. USA cannot tell an accurate account of the events when these events are not even over. The two suspects have not even went to trial and this movie has been made. WHY?!I encourage people to not watch this movie. USA dosen't care if you don't like it. If you watch it you are supporting it. So don't watch it. It is a story that needs time to become history.

boblipton Good performances, direction and interesting camerawork struggle with an indifferent script that lends little insight to this just-the-fact-ma'am handling of the DC Sniper. Dutton is little short of superb, but he can't do much with the material. The fisheye lenswork and overly crisp definition are, at first interesting, but after a while simply emphasis the emptiness of the story, and the musix is annoying from the start.