paul david 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.

David Motolo 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?

sol **SPOILERS** The film "Boston Strangler: The Untold Story" doesn't take for granted that Albert De Salvo, David Faustina,is in fact that infamous serial murderer who terrorized the city of Boston from June 1962 to January 1964 murdering 13 women, ranging from 19 to 85, in the process.We get to see De Salvo as a petty criminal who got caught up with the frenzy of the strangler murders long after they stopped. Having been arrested for a series of crimes from attempted rape to breaking and entering and robbery De Salvo got influenced by his cell-mate convicted murderer Frank Asarian, Kostas Sommers, who convinced De Salvo that there was big bucks in him confessing to the strangler murders. ***SPOILER ALERT***It was then that a weak willed and desperate, in taking care of his family, Albert De Salvo fell hook line and sinker for it which eventually, in making himself a marked man behind bars, lead to his murder.We get to see De Salvo and Asarian cook up a number false claims and phony evidence in trying to prove that De Salvo was actually the notorious Boston Strangler. De Salvo who claimed that he had a photographic memory crammed all the evidence he could find, with the help of cell-mate Asarian, in his not so accurate mind that had him make a total fool of himself when he was asked by a state appointed psychiatrist to recreate the events.It's later in the film after De Savlo was given a life sentence for his rape and robbery convictions that he soon realized in talking with his, and Asarian,lawyer Stuart Whitmore, Corin Nemec, what a total mess he made for himself. Even though De Salvo was never tried or convicted, or in fact even indited, for the Boston Strangler killings the fact that he tried so hard to take credit, as well as make himself rich, for them influenced his jury to give him the ultra harsh sentence that he untimely received!We already see where De Salvo is going at the very beginning of the movie in his attempt, through the prison psychiatrist, to come clean and tell the truth about his involvement or non involvement in the killings that he so readily took credit for. As we all know De Salvo never lived to tell the story in him being found murdered in the maximum security Walpol Prison infirmary on the morning of November 25, 1973; De Salvo who took the secret of the strangler murders, and what he had or had not to do with them, to his grave was only 42 years old.Even though it's nowhere as well known or effective as the far more popular 1968 blockbuster version of "The Boston Strangler" staring Tony Curtis as Albert De Salvo this straight to DVD treatment of the story is more accurate given all the evidence that came to light, like DNA evidence disputing at last one of De Salvo's murder claims, over the last 35 or so years after De Salvo death. Nobody on the case ever took De Salvo's claims in being the infamous serial killer seriously especially the man in charge of the case Det. Jon Marsden, Andrew Divoff.It seemed that De Salvo was the perfect pasty in his willingness to take responsibly in the stranglers murders and the higher ups in both the Boston Police Department and City Government, in order to cover their behinds in them not being able to solve the case, gladly went along with him. If in fact De Salvo wasn't the Boston Strangler, as the movie claims, then who was? And if so did he, the real Boston Strangle, not only escape ultimate justice but kept on committing more horrendous crimes that escaped the eye of both the Boston Police and the local and National News media?

horrorcritic72 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!!!