L'Étrangleur de Boston

How this film has only a 3.9/10 rating on this site right now is beyond me. It's really not nearly that bad. In fact, it is quite interesting and it's also probably the most accurate film made on the Boston Strangler case so far. The 1968 film is far better entertainment and of better quality for sure, it's a pretty strong film in many ways. But at the same time, the 1968 film has little concern for the reality of the actual true story. So in terms of the facts, this film is actually superior. This is definitely more of a drama than a horror. There really isn't many tense or graphic moments in this film. If you're interested in the actual real story and you don't mind your serial killer films being dramas, then this is likely worth a watch for you. The production quality and the acting are nothing special here, but neither are all that bad either. For me, this didn't make the story any less significant or watchable. I found it to be easily watchable in fact, and as I previously said, it's quite interesting. 6/10.

"Boston Strangler : The Untold Story" is a poorly acted, horrendously written, low budget, garbage movie. This film fails on so many levels, it's difficult to know where to start. The acting is about on the level you would expect from a high school theater. As to why Bud Bundy was cast as the lead in this role, I'll never know. But to the actor's credit, they didn't have much to work with. The writing in this film is among the worst I've ever seen. We are forced to sit through many long pointless scenes and terrible, self-serving, completely unrealistic dialog sequences.

I recommend no one see this movie. Doing almost anything else for an hour and a half would be a better use of your time.

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.

I must say that these particular films are, B-Grade horror movies, on very low budgets, and with some insufferable acting. So with that in mind don't expect this is going to be an accurate or astonishing depiction of the strangler. It's more a story of fiction, with a dramatized twist to make it more appealing.

There's an early scene in the apartment complex where I honest though, I was watching the start of a porno. The story was so similar that I couldn't distinguish the difference.

A naïve girl gets asked by a stranger if she would be perfect for modeling. She doesn't question anything about this man and agrees to take him, man, to her room. Some fondling occurs, and all of a sudden she accuses him of not being a modeling agent at all. Seem familiar?

At this stage, rather than being in the horror category, this could be in the comedy/softcore porn category.

The prison sequence in the last twenty or so minutes was my highlight of the film. It was a little more engaging, and the ending took me by a much-needed surprise.

This is a vastly different view of the Boston Strangler told from someone's perspective.

It tells a story of a petty criminal Albert De Salvo who cannot control his high sex drive. Albert is manipulated by an unusually intelligent inmate Frank Asarian (Presumed to be the actual Boston Strangler) to confess to the slew of strangler murders.

This film has some big flaws, starting with the flow. For example, the police force, namely John Marsden had little relevance. Despite being billed as a lead role, he was emotionless and served no real purpose in this particular story whatsoever.

Most of the other character arcs were just there to fill gaps. Such as the new police lead on the Boston Strangler case. Therefore, we were left with just the two characters who we despise for almost the whole second half of the movie and a bunch of people who just filter throughout the background.

The most colorful performance was by lawyer Stuart Whitmore played by Corin Nemic. He was cool, corrupt, and sophisticated.

I would say The Boston Strangler, the untold story is nothing more than a time filler. You can sit through It for some light-hearted entertainment. But only if you were desperate to kill an hour and a half, and don't care much for your time.

4/10.

I love movies based in Boston, since I am from the Boston area I have high expectations. This looked good but wasn't. The acting was not good also many plot holes. All around disappointment. Will not be watching this again.