tradeczar Seeing that three consecutive reviewers gave this atrocity of a movie ten stars simply adds to the insult. I really don't know who is worse.....Uli Lommel for making it or whoever bought it for distribution. The true story of the snipers was compelling enough for the movie to have stayed true to the facts. If Lommel had wanted to make things up, he could have had a screenwriter build it from scratch. Instead he went on the cheap and exploited what was a horrible tragedy and sold it as a true account. Virginia plates on the car. No. New Jersey. A removable tail light through which Malvo shot the victims. Hardly. The snipers drove around with a visible hole cut from the trunk. Lommel never even shot any scenes outside California. And then there were the keystone cop detectives walking around the monuments (where none of the shootings occurred) watching tourists with binoculars as if that ever happened... All the while spouting patriotic drivel. This story and its victims deserved an honest movie. Lommel and the three reviewers who raved about this mess of a movie should be ashamed of themselves.

simon-218 Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Terrible acting marred by long and tedious voice overs, cheap and shoddy camera-work and distracting and melodramatic sounds effects. Even the opening credits looked cheap and nasty. Its amazing how such a bad movie can be made about what is such a potentially interesting story. The only consolation was reading the very humorous reviews by other disappointed users on this site.The movie could be a case study for aspiring actors and directors on how not to make a movie. It is so bad in every conceivable way that its a masterpiece of badness.

justaskdan OK let's review key elements of which at least one or more are required in order to make a movie interesting, viewable, likable, thought provoking and perhaps even stunning or beautiful. This movie had bad writing (really bad), bad acting, bad casting, bad directing, bad cinematography, a bad plot and yes, even a bad score. In other words this film has absolutely no redeeming qualities about it whatsoever. I don't know how a project could fail so horribly in the year 2010 especially with such interesting and relevant material to deal with.The 2003 made for TV movie entitled DC Sniper: 23 days of Fear, was excellent by the way! I guess they couldn't even come up with an original name for this turd.I could tell that it was going to be a B movie with just the credits but many B budget movies I have watched and enjoyed. This was not one of them. Things that really bothered me were: [1] Two real bad characterizations of the 'Texan' and the initial FBI agent who in the end took the sole credit for catching the duo. [2] This was supposedly based on fact yet the script deviated away from the facts at every opportunity. [3] How the dynamic duo teamed up and during routinesurveillance while undercover they just happened to find them in a parking lot. I love the writing around this point where it becomes so cheesy that it is actual humorous. "That 50,000 dollar reward sure would go along ways in finding my daughter". As if cops get cash rewards for doing their jobs. [4] The dinner scene was so laughable. How could anyone write so poorly.[5] They couldn't afford a real gun I guess as the one they used was sooooo bad and everyone knows they were using a high tech semiautomatic rifle.[6] The position of the kid in the trunk trying to shoot was so unrealistic that yet again I liked it because it was so humorous. No one could hit anything like that.[7] Making a big deal of getting out and replacing the tail light after every shoot (which never happened by the way) and yet they forget to put it back on when they were caught napping in the parking lot.I could go on easily but I won't. The movie was so bad that it forced me to register with IMDb to vent.

icebergslimproductions First off this movie was horrible.With that being said this may be considered a spoiler to anyone thinking they are going to learn some thing about this case or the people who purportrated these acts. The only thing they got right were the names John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. Thats it nothing else.I live in the DC area so I know a lot of the facts and what happened because we here in the District were very frightened and paid attention to every detail of what was going on around us.Fact 1. Only 1 of the 13 shootings happened in DC. 10 of the 13 were killed. Unlike in the movie where they were just riding around DC.In the movie they made it seem like Lee didn't want to shoot anyone when they were talking in the car(already in DC). When in Fact (2) They were linked to more than 10 shootings throughout the country before getting to DC.Fact 3. There was no manifesto sent to the White House. They did however leave a few cryptic notes at some of the crime scenes one demanding that police say that they had captured them "Like a duck in a noose"(or something like that) Fact 4. There wasn't 2 lone agents (who looked like they were going to make out at one point in this movie) It was a joint task force of Montgomery Co PD & FBI.Fact 5. The gun in the movie looked like a .22 rifle without a scope LMAO. they used a Bushmaster In the movie they just shot a lot of white people (mainly women) Fact 6. They shot or killed people of all races and nationalities in order to make it seem like like everyone was a threat including a 13 yr old black boy.Fact 7. They were caught sleeping at a rest stop in Maryland by a trucker the same night the description of Muhammad and the car was broadcast. Not by 2 agents in an alley.Its one thing to take liberties with facts but this was utterly ridiculous.Avoid at all costs unless you want to see how not to make a movie.