Who remembers the horrific Beltway sniper shootings which left 10 dead and 3 seriously wounded in the Washington, D.C. area in 2002? I remember a friend of mine who lived in Maryland telling me how he was afraid to leave his house at the time. Was it really necessary to bring back up all the horrible memories? The American-based, French director, Alexandre Moors certainly thought so.

Moors' approach is to explore the relationship between the two killers, the adult John Allen Muhammed and his teenage partner in crime, Lee Boyd Malvo, avoiding any sensationalistic aspects of the shooting spree. That's a good thing, because what is the point of rehashing such tragic events that brought so much grief to the families of the innocent victims? Moors approach is psychological. But is there enough meat to the story to keep us interested and perhaps gain insight into what drove these psychopaths, to do what they did?

In Moors' narrative, Malvo is abandoned by his mother in Antigua where Muhammed just happens to be vacationing with his young daughters. Muhammed saves Malvo from drowning in the ocean and they quickly bond. The only problem is that Muhammed never saved Malvo and it was both the teenager and his mother who met Muhammed and she left him in his care. So the angle that Malvo bonded with Muhammed because he owed him his life, does not hold any weight.

After Muhammed brings Malvo back with him to the United States, we basically figure out what motivates Muhammed in about a half hour time. Most of those involved in law enforcement will tell you that the most dangerous type of criminal is the one who commits crimes of domestic violence. Indeed, it's Muhammed's loss of his children in a custody battle, that leads him to become extremely bitter and later paranoid. Finally, in Muhammed's deranged mind, it's the 'system' that is to blame; so taking lives methodically (and not randomly as the psycho killer puts it) is the name of the game. That's really all you have to know what Muhammed's motivations were and Moors has his anti-hero express those sentiments throughout the rest of the film.

Malvo on the other hand comes off as an empty vessel; a follower who utters few words. Muhammed boasts that "I've created a monster", referring to his young charge, who he now dubs his "son". It's not surprising this zombie-like kid would do the older man's bidding—when they're living with Muhammed's old Army buddy, Ray, a rabid gun nut, Malvo gains access to an entire arsenal of weaponry. Tutored on violent video games and actual target practice, Malvo becomes a crack marksman and later does the paranoid killer's bidding. There's one semi-violent scene where Muhammed ties Malvo to a tree in the forest and abandons him there, in an act of 'tough love'—expecting the teenager to toughen up, so he's ready to enthusiastically become a cold-blooded sniper.

Moors' treatment of the Beltway snipers is antiseptic. We never learn who the victims were nor experience the anguish of the families. Instead, 'Blue Caprice' is a beautifully shot, 'art' film. Moors seeks to illustrate what the concept of 'the banality of evil' is all about; but it's a slow tour through the wasteland. Ultimately, the killers' machinations are mundane—and inconsequential. Moors deprives his audience of the satisfaction as to how Muhammed and Malvo were captured and processed by the authorities (a routine police patrol check in a parking lot only suggests that this is where M&M reached the end of the line). And the most interesting information about the man-boy relationship is left out entirely: the assertion after Malvo's conviction, that he was sexually abused by the older man (see the Musical 'Thrill Me', which chronicles the gay affair between the two 1920s thrill killers, "Leopold and Loeb"—the author there was not afraid to explore the homosexual relationship between the two men).

Alexandre Moors is not without talent—usually with many of these neophyte filmmakers, it's in the realm of technical wizardly, as opposed to acumen with the script. Yes, 'Blue Caprice' has some mighty impressive cinematography and the two principals who play the killers, Isaiah Washington and Tequan Richmond, are completely believable as the brutal Muhammed and stone-cold Malvo.

In the end, the best word to describe Moors' examination of the Beltway snipers, is opaque. In perhaps better hands, this could have been a gripping crime story. But something also tells me that this was a story that does not really lend itself to good drama. 'Blue Caprice' is one such example that is better left to the history books than to the silver screen.

Blue Caprice has some notable and powerful scenes. Obviously the scenes with victims being shot is hard to watch, will turn your stomach and are very well shot. The film avoids being exploitative and yet at times you'll wonder if the film makers are trying to excuse and demonstrate why these men (especially the young boy) ended up doing what they did. Then again I struggled to really understand the point of Blue Caprice and why it was made at all. I don't know how I would have changed the film because its not that I wanted to see them commit the violence and yet I think the subsequent investigation and the desperate plight of law enforcement to stop these two would have made a more captivating film then watching a man and an impressionable boy, both of whom are clearly deranged. I just struggled to figure out what the film makers were trying to do with the story, the characters etc. I didn't find any of it overly interesting the pacing was excruciating at times. The performances of everyone in the film weren't strong enough to carry the movie or make it riveting. It needed better editing, a stronger cast, and a completely different screenplay to be effective. Unfortunately what we are left with is a bit of a let down.

Isaiah Washington has struggled to find his place since leaving Grey's Anatomy. I've never seen him as a leading actor and I don't find him particularly good in any role so this was simply too big for him to take on. He isn't believable or even interesting trying to play this supposedly charismatic sociopath. We don't understand him, and we don't even understand his motives and he really drops the ball and gives a rather ho-hum performance unfortunately. His young counterpart who becomes enamoured with this father figure is played by Tequan Richmond. Richmond tries very hard and he's trying to capture this quiet loner who has had a rough childhood but he takes it too far and too much obscure because he seems boring and just not what the role could have been. A supporting cast is basically wasted between Joey Lauren Adams (I'm still trying to figure out why they even had her in the film) and Tim Blake Nelson who is a good actor but completely underused in this particular cast.

I understand this is a hard story to tell and capture. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been done properly. Why would you get a director with little experience (this in fact Alexandre Moors first feature length film) and then a cast that is Sunday Night movie quality at best. It just seems this idea should have been brilliant and has Oscar quality idea all over it but a sincere lack of experience and quality makes this one an unfortunate dud. You really watch the film and feel the build up and you're waiting for something significant and powerful to happen and while the crime itself is of course shocking, the film ultimately lets you down and leaves you feeling empty. There are too many high quality "based on true story" films out there to give this time. 5.5/10

I'm probably giving this disguised story of the two Washington, DC, snipers more bonus points than it deserves, simply because it's not a sensationalize, dumbed-down piece of dreck dripping with exploding heads. Those who made the flick put some thought into it and made some hard decisions about how to structure it and bring the elements together. That they failed in many way doesn't detract from their willingness to take risks.

It's not "based on a true story," thank God. It's thoroughly fictionalized, although the two chief characters -- the embittered "father", Isaiah Washington, and his zombified "son", Tequan Richmond, obviously represent the two snipers of infamy who drove around Washington, DC, shooting people at random from a hole in the trunk of a blue Caprice.

Both performances are professional in caliber. As the kid, Richmond hardly has any lines. Washington is a fine actor. He gives a convincing impression of a distraught father over the phone while trying to con confidential information out of some bureaucratic cog. He's far from a stereotypical ghetto black thug. He speaks clearly, is intelligent, is a obsessive parent, and ends his gerund phrases with "ing." It's only his reasoning that is as screwed up as a super-long strand of rotini. They took his kids away, so he's going to bring the government down.

The photography is aptly blue and sepulchral. The shabby environment of the American Northwest, all rain and pitted aluminum siding, is neatly captured, as is the complex density of Washington's relationships with his few white friends. One of them, looking like a guy you'd cross the street to avoid, is a gun freak. They're old friends, evidently, yes, but they know trouble when they see it. The freak and his worried wife are only too glad to see Washington and Richmond take off in their Caprice for sites unknown -- without anyone saying a word to anyone else.

That holding back is innovative in a movie about serial killers. It's also a symptom of the film's weakness. It's very tense (we know what's coming) but not very exciting. Scenes that are important to the viewer are missing. A cop car finds them sleeping in a roadside pull off. Washington is very apologetic and polite. The cop says he will only write them a warning for parking overnight but don't let it happen again. He checks the rear of the Caprice then shuffles to his car radio and we hear him say, "I think I've got something here." And -- BANG -- the pair are in prison and we never see Washington again. No arrest. No interrogation. No trial. Nothing.

It's not much of a crime story. We only see one traffic cop. As a character study, it's okay but the dynamics between the two are so obvious that not much time needs to be spent on them. Richmond is a kid from the Caribbean without parents. Washington is a parent who wants his kids.

In it's own quiet way -- perhaps too quiet -- it's a powerful movie, worth seeing. I really dislike action movies in which Arnold wrenches off somebody's head with a wisecrack, but this one is a bit like watching a performance of Julius Caesar that skips Caesar's assassination and the suicide of Brutus.