KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

crich-69719 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.

Syl 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.

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.

Michael O'Keefe Michael Feifer writes and directs this "untold" story revolving around the terrifying serial killings of thirteen women in Boston in the early sixties. Police thought they had once and for all captured the infamous Boston Strangler in Albert DeSalvo(David Faustino). The women were sexually assaulted and left displayed with no shame and most strangled with their own nylon stockings. DeSalvo, psychotic and proud of the notoriety was convicted and later found stabbed to death in prison. The police were never fully convinced the killings were committed by just one man. This movie wants you to think you know who really did the killings other than DeSalvo.This movie does not carry the intensity or even the interest possessed by the 1968 BOSTON STRANGLER starring Tony Curtis. And Faustino is damn sure not a Tony Curtis. His casting as DeSalvo seems so ludicrous; and at times comes off as a cocky buffoon instead of a "psycho" killer. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and it never did. Also in the cast: Andrew Divoff, Kostas Sommer, Joe Torry and Corin Nemec.