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.
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.