Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

CDN$ 33.86 + CDN$ 3.49 shipping
In Stock. Sold by OMydeals

or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
More Buying Choices
M and N Media Canada Add to Cart
CDN$ 35.85
Have one to sell? Sell yours here

The Boston Strangler [Import]

David Faustino , Andrew Divoff , Michael Feifer    Unrated   DVD

Sale: CDN$ 33.86
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Only 1 left in stock.
Ships from and sold by OMydeals.

Product Details


Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought


Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.ca
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 2.6 out of 5 stars  7 reviews
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars NOT A SLASHER FILM Jan. 15 2012
By The Movie Guy - Published on Amazon.com
Format:DVD
I was expecting a slasher type of film from the DVD cover. Instead what I got was more akin to a historical drama. This is what we believe is the story of Albert De Salvo (David Faustino), the man who confessed to being the Boston Strangler. The film shows several women being strangled, but not really grindhouse style, more of a Hitchcock style. The accents were good. The acting and plot was decent, although the story just never grabbed me. There is no nudity and no graphic rape scenes, just disturbing strangling scenes. It is interesting from an historical sense, but not overly entertaining, yet not a bad film. Hence the so-so rating.

F-bombs.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Far cry from Bud Bundy Jan. 18 2009
By Ronald L. Ferrell Jr. - Published on Amazon.com
Format:DVD|Verified Purchase
I checked this out on Amazon's Marketplace page at a really low price.I'm surprised that I didn't see any reviews from any of the Horror site's.Although not a gore film It is a really good dramatic film.David Faustino as Albert DeSalvo is a far cry from the Bud Bundy Character that he played on t.v.And the fact that this is from the same guy who directed Chicago Massacre and has some of the same cast(Andrew Divoff,Corin Nemic)helps.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Closer to the truth Nov. 26 2011
By Mason C - Published on Amazon.com
Format:DVD|Verified Purchase
Now that is is commonly accepted that Albert DeSalvo was most likely not the Boston Strangler, but instead was just a sneaky little conman & pervert, who just happened to be locked up in a mental asylum with several known psychopaths & serial killers, most of whom were out at the time of the stranglings, including the sociopath George Nassar who is protrayed in the film as the real killer. So, as opposed to the Tony Curtis classic, which is basically a fictionalized version of these crimes (like how Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a fictionalized version of Ed Gein), this film is very low budget, but director Mike Feifer is vetren in the serial killer movies field & ol' Bud Bundy himself David Faustino does, in my opinon, the greatest, most accurate depiction of Albert De Salvo that was ever on film. Overall, a good little film.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars disappointing March 12 2011
By Bookworm936 - Published on Amazon.com
Format:DVD|Verified Purchase
We were on a serial killer kick and decided to check this out and it was very slow. Also, it seems to lack some information. From the movie Albert was jobless and in a somewhat disfunctional marriage and was paid to appear in police line ups. It only shows Albert killing one woman. The rest are done by other people. Yet, it mentions that the 5 original victims were older and the others were copycats. So Albert didn't kill every one of them...but only the one? Anyway, when the police arrest him the movie doesn't show why or what evidence they have on him. The police just pull him over in a car and the next thing you know Albert is in jail. It would have been nice to have been shown the reasons. Also, the movie never cleared up why exactly Albert was so attached to his prison roommate. The acting was ok. It was interesting to see the young man who played Bud Bundy in a much different role.
1.0 out of 5 stars Take It From a DeSalvo Family Member; This Is Garbage! Jan. 7 2014
By Lisa Perry - Published on Amazon.com
Working on my own novel about Albert DeSalvo and the events that surrounded his crimes and confessions, I've committed to exploring all the published works about Albert DeSalvo, who was my mother's favorite uncle, and directly impacted by the Strangler Bureau media circus as her father, Albert's brother Joe, tried so desperately to help Albert while his own family fell apart.

Initially excited to come across a title so recently released, I watched it, ipad in hand. I found myself wondering throughout the picture, "Who is Michael Feifer, this writer/director/producer, with a cameo appearance? And what connection does he have to this story?" With each successive scene, I surmised that his connection was likely to be none other than a recipient of hand-me-down anecdotes, perhaps of inmates who "knew" Albert.

The movie's portrayal of the Strangler investigation alone is so skewed as to include Albert in a line-up for the Stranger murders, which never actually happened. This is important because when investigators retrospectively looked at their activities, they realized that they never considered Albert DeSalvo as a suspect because he was well-known as a petty thief--a completely different category of crime. Breaking and entering was his thing, at least before his stint as the Measuring Man. And at that, the Measuring Man was about 3 things: feeling superior for having duped highly educated women, getting a cheap thrill and making quick cash. Albert never engaged in violent behavior at that time, unlike the movie's depiction--which had Albert in a completely different classification of criminal during the Strangler Bureau's Investigation.

Am I attempting to fuss over the fact that this movie's portrayal of Albert DeSalvo gives us intellectual whiplash, yanking us back and forth between glimpses of his initial gullibility (and the regret that became his undoing), and scenes in which he rivals Jekyll & Hyde's emotional stability? Not really. I'm simply a believer in a writer's responsibility to be forthright about what they're presenting to the public.

The movie's title set me up to prepare for a review of all the familiar players of that time.

Instead, I kept pausing the movie and looking up names I'd never heard, like "Paul Winfield" who was apparently supposed to represent the real-life, first black police commissioner in Boston, MA, Edward Brooke.

Paul Winfield announces the formation of the Strangler Bureau, and its' leader, Fred Addison, who later tapes Albert's confession. In reality, this was John Bottomly.

And yet even the changed names were inconsistent, lending to deep confusion. Identifying Albert's children by their correct names, Judy and Michael, it named his wife "Claudia," instead of Irmgard. Albert never had a brother named Michael or a sister-in-law named Sondra; the only husband-wife sibling team that visited Albert in jail was Albert's brother Richard and his wife, Rosalie.

The man identified in the line-up, who later became Albert's cellmate was identified as "Frank Asarian," but the real-life inmate who was instrumental in developing Albert's get-rich-quick scheme was a sociopath named George Nassar. He was from a wealthy family, who had reportedly spent quite a lot of money keeping George out of the press for the sake of the family name. Talking Albert into confessing to the Strangler crimes was just an extension of that strategy, and it was effortless to pay a hot shot lawyer.

George Nassar's attorney, F. Lee Bailey (apparently portrayed in the movie as Stuart Whitmore, who laughably referenced working 'pro-bono'--AS IF) convinced Albert of all the money he would make, taking book and movie deals after his conviction.

The opening scene shows Albert calling a doctor named Dr. Arlen who was familiar with him; in reality, Albert called 2 people the night before he was killed; F.Lee Bailey, and Dr. Ames Robey. While the progression of the murders and victims was completely inaccurate, I found it strange, if not in poor taste that the original names of the victims were used.

I would give this movie a half-star if I could, just for the attempt, and for getting a few facts straight. However harsh that sounds, my reaction comes from the fact that only after the title's promise and the painful content does the movie reveals it's standard disclaimer as a fictional work, which means 1 of 2 things to me; either the writer did not have the will or the guts to get the facts straight enough to straightforwardly declare the work a non-fiction, OR the writer knowingly wrote a fictional piece, including just enough of the facts to reel the viewer in, promising revelation of "truth," while delivering the same fluffy nonsense I endured while reading Sebastian Junger's "Murder In Belmont."

In the vernacular of Ebert & Roeper: "I give this a 2 thumbs down!"

Stay on the lookout for my new book, "In the Shadow of the Strangler," due for release later this year!

-Lisa A. Perry

Look for similar items by category


Feedback