D.C. Sniper: 23 Days of Fear (2003)

Why so much hype?

That was an excellent one.

Captivating movie !

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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.

This film came on DVD, and was a good opportunity to see what the general nature of these vicious crimes was. At that time I was quite busy, and didn't get to follow it on the headlines. I found it well directed, very nice camera work. The sound score, although cliche at times, aided in the suspense. I loved Charles S. Dutton, his best acting so far I think.Most crimes are committed on the basis that the criminal thinks he/she/they won't get caught - thus the severity of punishment is a moot point. However the message is clear here : You can do a crime maybe even 20 times, but the 21st time you WILL GET CAUGHT. Hopefully this might serve as a (unfortunately money making) deterrant. That's the best I can hope for.

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.

Now, some may say this movie is controversial due to its subject matter, and the fact that it's been only a year since the horrific blood-lusting rampage that John Lee Malvo and John Muhammad had gone on to terrorize America.Let's break down the analysis in to a few parts.Acting - There was some pretty good acting, Charles Dutton did a great job at portraying Detective Moose.The actors that played Malvo and Muhammad also did very good jobs. They had a great mix of emotion, and non emotion. As soon as they knew they were in trouble, you could just sense that Muhammad new they were in deep crap and wouldn't be able to escape.Cinematography - This film had EXCELLENT cinematography. I loved the camera use in this tv movie. It was fantastic. Plus, the dark blue, and grey really sets the tone for such a case, as it gives the movie a "grimey" feel to it.Plot/Storyline - It's based on true facts, so there isn't much to judge on. The director did an excellent job of translating these true events to an actual event on screen.My grade - B+ (for TV movies.)I've seen better, and oh God, I've seen FAR MORE worse. This is a must see if you like Phone Booth. A good popcorn movie to pass the time.Although you may disagree, (since I live here in California and weren't in danger of the snipers), please, just enjoy the movie for what it is, a movie.