Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Touches You

The first must-see film of the year.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

there have been a few movies about the boston strangler, but the other movies have been portrayed as albert desalvo bieng convicted of and bieng the boston strangler, even though it's widely known that he more than likely wasn't't and only admitted to bieng the strangler for notoriety, and money, this is what this movie is about and even if it isn't 100 percent accurate, its no lees accurate than the others, in fact this is probably still the most closest version to the truth so far. the movie isn't a masterpiece and at times the low budget is apparent, bur for the most part there is good acting, good script, and a good movie, not one of the best no, but for fans of true crime and serial killer movies, this is good stuff

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.

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.