The Boston Strangler

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.

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.

Boston Strangler: The Untold Story has been told. Not by this movie. It has been told by numerous docs and news shows. This movie is another example of low rent studios try to cash in on serial killer exploits no matter if it is a bad movie. Spike Lee showed with Son of Sam how to make a great movie based on a serial killer that has been covered from head to toe by docs and news shows. Nothing was shown that grabbed me by my collar.

No tension existed. Either who ever made this didn't know how to build up to the murders or didn't care. They collected their money from the studio. They don't care what people think. I am pleading directly to the director and studio chief of this movie to stop this. Planet earth is over run with waste. We as a people do not need to add to it with this sorry movie. Where do disappointed people write to get a refund? Who is with me?

After watching this film I did a little research of my own, if the info I got while viewing the web page on wikipedia is correct, then the self confessed Boston Strangler Albert DeSalvo was clearly full of sh**t, although DeSalvo himself was a piece of sh**t, but he was not the strangler, my reasons for saying this, is because my research revealed that some of the women DeSalvo said he raped showed no signs of sexual activity, and although DeSalvo supposedly revealed details of the murders that were not made public, none of his descriptions of the crimes were ever confirmed, yet their speculating on whether DeSalvo really was the strangler.

So I ask, what is so hard to grasp about the fact that DeSalvo took advantage of the Boston murders just so that he could get rich and famous or "infamous"? I for one would've supported the Sullivan family in saying that DeSalvo was not Mary Sullivan's killer.

As for this film, its nothing more than a worn out subject, and the films that depict real life serial killers have never really been anything to write home about, and this one is just following the trend.

Plus, people usually tell me to think a bit outside the box, if I had to give a profile, I'd say the strangler was pretty good at working his way into the lives of his victims, he was probably some secret love interest that the victims family and friends didn't know about, and probably preyed on a certain weakness, and he could've been a potential stalker watching his victims for days, one more thing, he might have more than a mother fixation, based on the fact that he also murdered elderly women, might want to look at someone else in the family or someone close to the family, and DeSalvo didn't go for elderly women.

These actors better have received reimbursement for their dialogue coaches for telling them to drop all "r's". Hard and soft. This makes these people sound like idiots not Bostonians. The plot is convoluted at best.