In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I cannot fault the first rate acting of the three main characters. The father John Allen Muhammad (then aged 42) played by Isaiah Washington, separated from his children, who was sour on life and straddled with a restraining order against him from being anywhere near his ex-wife, the young lad from Antigua Lee Boyd Malvo (then 17) played by Tequan Richmond that John brings back to the U.S. to commit his murderous spree, and John's friend and fellow gun owner Ray, played by Tim Blake Nelson. This is a true story and although all of North America's televisions audiences were glued to their TV's 24 hour news station between October 02, 2002 until that fateful morning on October 24, 2002, when John and Lee were discovered sleeping in their blue Caprice car at 3:15 a.m. in the morning, and then the world breathed a sigh of relief.Surprisingly the film did not focus on this 22 day period of random shootings and the fear it spread across the United States. Instead the first hour or so of the film was dedicated to providing us the audience with insight on how John Allen Muhammad recruited his young naive accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo who had no father figure in his life and was basically abandoned by his mother with no food or money to fend for himself back in Antigua. It seemed too easy for the adult John Allen Muhammad to manipulate the much younger and love starved Lee Boyd Malvo to accept the role of sniper and murderer.I would like to bring to your attention a comparison of how in 2005, the legal system went very hard on this young naive black man aged 17 sentencing him to six consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. Now compare this harsh sentence to the pathetic light sentence that occurred in 2013, of ten years probation and no jail time for a then 17 year old white caucasian Ethan Anthony Couch from Texas who while driving impaired killed four (4) innocent bystanders who were assisting a stranded motorist on the side of the road that this drunk and under the influence of drugs ran over and killed. Two passenger's in Couch's truck that he was driving also suffered bodily injury, one with complete paralysis. His parents were millionaires and their costly legal team defended this despicable killer with a defence that their (very rich) client suffered from a term called "affluenza". After fleeing the country illegally to Mexico and witnessed drinking and partying Ethan Anthony Couch was brought back to Texas and served a two year prison sentence.I am not disputing that both of these young men are responsible for the deaths they caused but without knowing which if these criminals was white or black skinned I am quite sure we could all ascertain by their imposed sentences which was the poor black youth and which was the rich white youth.As for Blue Caprice the acting by Isaiah Washington, Tequan Richmond and Tim Blake Nelson was superb. The background story of how John Allen Muhammad manipulated and intimidated the much younger parent less Lee Boyd Malvo was understood and I would have preferred the film would have captured more of the documented details of how these two criminals plotted, some times executed and other times abandoned their plan of another random execution all in an effort to somehow cover up that John Allen Muhammad's real intention was to kill his ex-wife and throw the police forces off that this was his sole purpose in the first place. The resulting damage attributed to these two killers was the 10 non fatal injuries and 17 deaths attributed to what is now known as the Beltway killers.

"It could be anybody. Anybody could have done it and if it could be anybody then we're invisible." Lee (Richmond) is a young boy who is lost in the world with no real direction or family. John (Washington) finds him and begins to talk to him about the problems in his world. After describing the wrongs that have been done to him Lee decides to help by killing an innocent woman. After "getting away with it" John decides to up the stakes in order to cause chaos. The two begin their random killing spree. We know these two as the 2002 Washington D.C. Beltway snipers. This is a good movie but very disturbing. Not disturbing in a horror movie way but in a more realistic way. We see how easy Lee was manipulated by John and how neither of them seemed to show any remorse for their actions. The most disturbing thing to me about this though is that the killings seemed absolutely senseless. Targets were picked based solely on if they could be seen through the hole in the trunk. This is a hard movie to watch because of the subject matter but if you can handle it it is worth seeing. Overall, disturbing character study that doesn't do anything to glorify or make you feel sorry for the murderers, which is a good thing. I give it a B+

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.

Admittedly going in with very little knowledge of the actual events behind the true story which "Blue Caprice" is based on (the Beltway sniper attacks) other than the fact that two men (one was a minor) had engaged in a series of public shootings on the east coast, during a span of three weeks in October 2002, the most intriguing aspect of this film is how its focus is not on the shootings themselves, but the relationship between the two killers, Lee Malvo and John Muhammad.Synopsis: After being pretty much abandoned, a sixteen year old Caribbean boy named Lee, played by Tequan Richmond (who is also the best thing to come out of that crappy "Everybody Hates Chris" show) seeks guidance from an American man named John (played by Isaiah Washington, who gives the performance of his life). The boy becomes absolutely mesmerized with his new found father figure, even though John is an openly abusive man, who is mentally unstable and holds an unhealthy disdain for the world around him. Quickly transforming into a cult leader-type, John begins to brainwash this damaged child, as "Blue Caprice" careens towards a cold blooded final 20 minutes.While John Muhammad is painted as the monster he truly is, with the way I have described the plight of Lee Malvo, his sixteen year old accomplice, I realize that there are readers who will be turned off simply because I do make it sound as though director Alexandre Moors shines a sympathetic light on a killer of innocent people. Now, is "Blue Caprice" meant to give a sympathetic portrayal of Lee Malvo? The answer is, yes. BUT (and this is my opinion, of course) even though Malvo did engage in heinous acts and I do sympathize with the victims of these shootings, if it really went down the way this movie depicts, then maybe audiences are right to feel sympathy for this kid.Final Thought: Whilst not as emotionally impactful as I would have liked it to be, "Blue Caprice" still packs a punch as a highly interesting dissection of a mutated father/son relationship, due to a combination of haunting performances from the two leads and some intriguing camera-work. So, between this and "Fruitvale Station", it has been a good few months for feature film directorial debuts.Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland