Simply Perfect

Absolutely Brilliant!

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

When U bought this, I actually though I bought the original movie from 1968, which has a cover almost like this one. It's not the American cover showed here, but almost identical to the poster shown on the 1968 movie. I realize this was done to confuse us Scandinavian DVD buyers, and I'm afraid to say they succeeded in fooling me.No doubt the instructor of this failed in telling a story which you believe in, even though this is a true story, told quite truthfully. How's that possible? Well, simply by make a B-casting which aren't directed like it should have been.The film is not very interesting. Still there is some effort put into it from some of the crew and the actors. But the talent is lacking from the film maker (and producer) which is spewing out films. I paid a dollar to see this, and I'm afraid to say that was at least a dollar too much.If you still like watching bad movies, it has some qualities in the efforts from the actors, really trying their best. Be wise, stay away from this! Wrote this to help you getting through the jungle, if you want to survive a world full of bad movies! If you bought this on DVD, which you probably did, throw away the CD and the paper, and use the plastic cover off one if your own CDs.

David Faustino surprised me as Albert De Salvo in this low budget film. Forget Bud Bundy, he really does a great job in bringing this suspect to life on screen. Short, illiterate, and possibly had a low I.Q. Albert De Salvo took a giant leap by being labeled the Boston Strangler. Although he had a wife and two kids, Albert De Salvo was a deeply troubled man and plagued with guilt. This film tells part of the story since it's possible that he wasn't the Boston Strangler after all. This film begins with a phone call to a doctor to talk about the Boston Strangler. During the course of the film, we see the frustrated Boston police, mayor, and journalists pressured to catch a serial killer. One police man had his doubts and he had every right to wonder if he had placed an innocent man in prison. Although De Salvo wasn't innocent entirely, this film depicts a man who would have been tortured by his conscience and guilt of other crimes. This film highlights Faustino's dramatic abilities. The story of this film has some holes and nobody in the cast is recognizable perhaps Corin Nemec who played the lawyer, Stuart Whitmore. There are still lots of questions about the Boston Strangular. But I'll leave it up to the audience. It's not a bad film but it's a low budget film.

There are so many movies to watch these days I can be forgiven if I missed the earlier versions of the Boston Strangler. As a Brit, I had heard of the Strangler in childhood but didn't really know the story (true or otherwise). Just done a little bit of extra research to back up my thought process.I actually enjoyed this film though I totally agree that David Faustino is no Tony Curtis, that this film is no blockbuster and Albert is portrayed as too cocky and unlikely to be the actual Strangler. Perhaps Mr Feiffer wanted us to think that from the beginning, more a scenario of who was the strangler but who it wasn't - and it couldn't be Albert, although the evidence in the film pointed to him.The use of the newspaper cutting was clever and even subtle reference to the 1968 Tony Curtis movie itself. The guy in the cell with Albert and who collaborated with him, the name in the movie is different, real life is George something? A man of high IQ.Obviously it prompts further research to understand background and I would like to see the 1968 curtis film plus a later one of 2006. What I am curious about is that the crimes of strangulations stopped, did they not, after Alberts arrest and detention - or did they continue? At the end of the movie (and this is hardly a spoiler in the circumstances) it is declared that there is conclusive DNA evidence against Albert being the killer of a couple of the ladies strangled and the film itself suggests that there were copycat crimes, as indeed there were for Jack the Ripper in London.The film should be seen. it is not a powerful drama but I do believe that it does what it sets out to do (to tell the untold story) and sets the ever curious among us to do more research on the subject.

Brutal Kills,Tension,Scares,Beautiful Women, and a well thought out story make this a 10 in my book.For any of those of you who aren't familiar with Mike Feifer's past true crime/serial killer productions (Ed Gein:The Butcher of Plainfield, Chicago Massacre Richard Speck,and upcoming Ted Bundy)he's fast making a name for himself as one of the best horror directors in the business.In "The Boston Strangler:The untold story" Feifer explores the dark psychology consuming Albert Desalvo and brings a completely fresh take to the story by expanding on the possibility that Albert Desalvo wasn't really the Boston Strangler. The film suggests that Desalvo was seeking notoriety as his motive to confess to the crimes committed by the Strangler and brings in another possible suspect (played to a tee by Kostas Summer)as the true strangler. This theory was discussed for years in newspapers following the Strangler Murders but has since faded from the public's memory until now. A MUST SEE FOR THE HARDCORE HORROR AND TRUE CRIME CROWD!!!