User Reviews

Based on the real-life series of murders in Boston from 1962-64, this police procedural has close to a documentary-style approach. The filmmakers also utilized the split-screen technique briefly popular back then, in other films such as "The Thomas Crown Affair." More than just splitting the screen in two, there are sometimes as many as 5 different images dividing the screen, and a widescreen version is necessary to get the full effect. Here, the technique is used to display the actions of both the victim and the serial killer at the same time, viewing their movements preceding the actual murders. Some viewers may find their concentration divided to a greater degree than they would like.

The first half of the film shows how the police deal with (or, try to) the number of female bodies steadily piling up in the city. Some of the material is dated, with homosexuals being the primary suspects, and various types of perverts, like peeping toms, rounded up in unintentionally amusing scenes (see also "The Detective"1968 with Frank Sinatra for similar scenes of the homosexual community persecuted by the police dept.). Fonda plays the chief investigator, placed in charge against his wishes, but who soon accepts the gravity of the situation. George Kennedy is one of the main detectives.

Curtis doesn't appear until the first hour ends. As an actor, he immersed himself in this unpleasant role, and, from the first minute he's seen on screen, all his past film roles are summarily wiped away. He was a star for close to 15 years at that point and all those comedies & sappy adventures he'd been in immediately disappear from one's mind. It's a rather astounding feat - who knew he was this method actor? But, he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Also, unlike, for example, Travolta's comeback in "Pulp Fiction"(94), this did not revitalize his career. Sally Kellerman("M*A*S*H",1970) also appears in an early role as a victim who just may survive. Look also for, in a very early role, James Brolin in one scene as a police sgt. caught in some indiscretion by a supposed clairvoyant. Modern filmmakers should also check out some of director Fleischer's techniques towards the end, in that white room with Curtis.

THE BOSTON STRANGLER (1968)

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Panavision)

Sound format: 4-track magnetic stereo

The true story of serial killer Albert DeSalvo (Tony Curtis), a devoted family man with a split personality who terrorised Boston during the early 1960's and murdered eleven women.

Perhaps taking its cue from the success of Richard Brooks' true crime drama IN COLD BLOOD (1967), Richard Fleischer's THE BOSTON STRANGLER is a dignified, unsensational account of Albert DeSalvo's notorious crimes and the wide-ranging police investigation which led to his arrest. However, modern viewers may be alarmed by the casual references to 'faggots', and a screenplay (by Edward Anhalt, from the book by Gerold Frank) which assumes a divide between 'normal' heterosexual behaviour and other forms of sexuality, all of which are bracketed as seedy, deviant and marginalised. That small (but significant) caveat aside, the movie provides an effective overview of a complex case, and Curtis - an unlikely choice for such a difficult role - gives a career-best performance as the deranged killer whose routine domestic life provided no hint of the monster lurking within his psyche. Henry Fonda is his nemesis, a dedicated law lecturer assigned to the case against his will, who eventually secured DeSalvo's confession. Some of the crime-scene details are fairly frank for a major release of the period, though the worst of it is relayed through dialogue and reaction shots, and visual depictions are kept to a bare minimum. Even for those familiar with the outcome of the case, the movie generates suspense through an accumulation of historical evidence, as Boston's terrified populace reacts convulsively to the maniac in their midst, and police trawl the streets for anyone whose sexual peccadilloes mark them as possible suspects.

Fleischer was a particular advocate of the widescreen format (he photographed most of his films anamorphically after being bowled over by a demonstration of CinemaScope in 1953), and his modish use of split-screen effects is completely diminished whenever the movie is broadcast on TV (you'll need a big screen to get even a modicum of the intended effect!). While irritating for some, there's nothing gratuitous about this technical device, by which Fleischer is able to convey layers of relevant information within the space of a single scene, whereas a conventional approach might have taken more time and necessitated the removal of crucial information (note also the clever use of directional dialogue and sound effects during these episodes). Few of the murders are recreated in any detail, but there's a couple of unsettling scenes which describe the cunning manner in which DeSalvo was able to gain access to his victims despite a city-wide alert over the Strangler's crimes, and Sally Kellerman is hugely sympathetic as the only woman to survive one of DeSalvo's brutal assaults.

NB. While Fleischer's film takes DeSalvo's guilt wholly for granted, the facts which condemned him have been challenged in robust terms by a number of sources throughout the years (most recently in Susan Kelly's 2002 book 'The Boston Stranglers: The Public Conviction of Albert DeSalvo and the True Story of Eleven Shocking Murders'), and much of the evidence which 'exonerates' DeSalvo is as compelling as anything in the movie. DeSalvo himself died in 1973, murdered by a fellow inmate whilst serving time in Walpole Prison.

After all the movies that he has done this one shown his acting chops and basically established himself as one of the most distinguish actors in Hollywood,but if you want to see Tony Curtis in a stunning performance as a serial killer,this is the movie to see and not to be missed.

Tony Curtis showed them off brilliantly with his chilling portrayal of confessed 1960's serial killer,Albert DeSalvo who killed and strangled 13 women in the streets of Boston. Curtis is frighteningly good at depicting the schizophrenic life of a seemingly normal family man who hides his sexual compulsions. Here also you have Henry Fonda as the detective out to stopped him and George Kennedy in a co-starring role. Director Richard Fleischer(of "Fantastic Voyage",and "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" fame)uses a split screen technique show DeSalvo crimes along with the painstaking police investigation that finally nabbed him in 1964. Shocking as it was back in 1968,and still shocking today in one of Tony Curtis' most gripping roles and exhilarating performance.

This account of Albert DeSalvo, a schizophrenic east coast furnace worker who may have terrorized early-1960s Boston with strangulations of women, plays fast and loose with the facts but is still pretty good as dramatic movie-making. An interesting, stylish, and yet sketchy picture which is ultimately convoluted with too many filmmaking styles. It wants to be quasi-documentary, flashy thriller and character study--but final results are half-baked. The multi-screen cinematography is arresting for awhile, but eventually this gambit becomes a nuisance (and seems to drain the movie of its energy). Solid cast is commendable, particularly Tony Curtis in the lead and Henry Fonda as DeSalvo's psychologist, but the picture is much stronger during the manhunt than it is after the capture--with 30 minutes to go. **1/2 from ****

The Boston Strangler is on the loose and the cops are without a suspect. They throw a wide dragnet for "the peepers, the men's room queens, the exhibitionists, subway jostlers, the dirty word specialists." Atty. Gen. Brooke assigns scholarly lawyer John Bottomly (Henry Fonda) to head the fractured investigation scattered in several jurisdiction. Det. DiNatale (George Kennedy) and Det. Frank McAfee (Murray Hamilton) investigate. Suspects include gay Terence Huntley, disturbed Lewis and compulsive liar Lyonel Brumley. Dianne Cluny (Sally Kellerman) survives an attack by family man Albert DeSalvo (Tony Curtis). He is caught after trying to break into an apartment.

This movie is basically split in two halves. The first half is the police investigation which I find very fascinating. They are hopelessly without a clue. In that part, even Henry Fonda isn't the star of the movie. It's the investigation and the many dead-ends that is the true star. I like the split screen in this section which give a scattered feel to the police work.

The second half starts with the introduction of Tony Curtis. It becomes a lot of psycho-babble trying to dig into DeSalvo. I'm not convinced of its authenticity and I don't think it's that compelling. The second half could have continued the idea of the first half. It could have made DeSalvo less definitive as the killer. Instead there is no mystery. The audience is simply waiting for him to admit his guilt which is not in doubt. The first half is a terrific crime movie and the second half is much less compelling.

Tony Curtis really showed his acting chops when he took on the most unlikely role of Albert DeSalvo the famous Boston Strangler of the early 1960s. Though he's only in the film literally for about half of it, what you see is a classic performance. Why he wasn't nominated for an Oscar, the Deity only knows.

13 women were found dead in the Boston area of manual strangulation and they were also sexually molested. Public concern was so great that the then Attorney General Edward Brooke, played by William Marshall, overrode local jurisdictions and prerogatives and assigned a lawyer from his office John Bottomly to coordinate the strangler investigation.

Henry Fonda plays Bottomly who takes the task on quite reluctantly because his expertise is civil litigation. My guess is that Brooke was thinking that Bottomly would be best for the job because he came in with no preconceived notions on how to do the job and would be open to anything. Turned out he was right.

Actually Fonda has more screen time than Curtis because the first half of the film concentrates on him and the investigation. He follows up every red herring thrown at him. He even hires a medium paid for with private funds by a millionaire friend of Brooke's played by George Voskevec who actually comes close in terms of geography to finding the real killer.

One of the red herrings is a gay man played by Hurd Hatfield who in those days before Stonewall was considered a likely suspect. He gets turned in by his landlady who is suspicious of his reading material. It's something he's used to, every time there's a lurid sex murder as an openly gay, or at least openly gay for that time he's brought in for questioning. This was one of the few times I ever heard the word gay used in a film made before the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969.

Curtis however dominates the film. The last 20 minutes or so is a final confrontation with him and Fonda and for those who are used to the insouciant leading man of swashbucklers and comedies, this is a real breakthrough. As much if not more of breakthrough than his part in Sweet Smell of Success.

In his memoirs however Curtis decries the fact that on this, the second of two films he worked with Henry Fonda on, he said that he found Fonda cold and forbidding as a person to work with.

The film is tautly directed by Richard Fleischer with some fine editing though I think Fleischer was a bit too fond of the split screen technique. Still it's a film worth watching.

Tony Curtis gives perhaps one of the most eye-popping performances all time as the Boston Strangler. His performances alone pushes this otherwise dull film, into something special. The style itself is a little overused; Henry Fonda can't hold his own; but Tony Curtis makes this film worth seeing.

Like most people, I'm fascinated with serial killers and why they do what they do. I don't need the gory details: just what makes them tick. I know some people here are turned off because they say that the killer - Albert DeSalvo - was not the mental personality he was portrayed in the last 30 minutes of this film. Personally, I don't care. I realize this is Hollywood, and how often is the film world historically accurate? Almost never.

So....just enjoy the acting, the camera-work, and the suspense because there is a lot to like here if you are entertained by crime stories.

I, for one, liked the split screen technique presented in this film. It gave a unique feel to the film, seeing the crimes from all kinds of angles at once. Rarely has this been done in films before or since. (I presume because it didn't go over that well to most people.)

Anyway, the story is riveting start to finish and Curtis gives a memorable performance, even though he isn't in the movie until the last segment. How some "critics" can label him a sub-par actor is beyond me. He is amazing in here, as he was in "Sweet Smell Of Success," "Some Like It Hot," and other films.

His fellow actors - Henry Fonda,George Kennedy, Hurd Hatfield, Murray Hamilton, Jeff Corey and Mike Kellin - all add to this excellent drama. It was a long wait for the DVD but at least that finally came out in 2005.

This film was originally released about the time the rating system began to be employed and films changed drastically. Although there is very little offensive language, there is nudity and some shocking scenes with the intense horrific subject matter.

THE BOSTON STRANGLER was made in 1968 at a time when Hollywood was finally getting caught up in the radicalism of the era and I can imagine this film shocking many cinema goers as much as the real life murders shocked Boston . It does go into some details of the brutal murders with referances to " Semen " and being " Raped by a bottle " but this pales alongside the montage of the police arresting a myriad of freaks , pervs and scumbags , but even this pales compared to the portrayel of homosexuality in the movie . If you`re PC and are offended by words like " Faggot " or " Queer " you`ll not want to watch this . Oh did I mention this is directed by Richard Fleischer the man responsible for the Disney masterwork 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA ? You`d never have guessed .

The biggest flaw with THE BOSTON STRANGLER is the uneven directing style by Fleischer using the split screen method for long periods of the movie which is very unsubtle ( And it`s not too surprising to see this technique very quickly died out in cinema ) , but the director redeems himself towards the end by using a couple of surreal abstract sequences . Watching these scenes today they`re both disturbing and haunting so lord knows how a 1968 audience would have reacted to them . Fleischer also casts well , and special praise should be given to Tony Curtis . It`s also nice to see a disclaimer at the start of the film pointing out that many events have been fictionalised as this explains the unlikely occurance the way the cops solved the case

This highly fictionalized account of the Boston Strangler cases of 1962-1964 has some flashy direction by Richard Fleischer and boasts some great usage of multi images and split screens which is used to show, among other things, roommates going about some mundane household task in one screen while another roommate is shown laying murdered in another.

The film is divided rather neatly into two parts. The first half is a police procedural with a couple of colorful detectives checking out tips and equally colorful possible suspects as the victim count rises. Albert DeSalvo (Tony Curtis) is captured - and for that matter first appears - at the halfway point. The second half consists of a character study and psychological profile of DeSalvo as he is extensively interviewed and questioned by assistant D. A. John Bottomly (Henry Fonda).

The part about DeSalvo having multiple personality disorder as well as how he was caught is completely false, but the anecdote about the psychic was true - A psychic really was employed who gave a completely accurate description of a suspect in the case who also turned out to be totally innocent. This episode greatly embarrassed the attorney general.

Made the same year that the production code officially ended, it dealt with sex crimes quite frankly and in a way that would have been considered unthinkable just five years before. The supporting cast has a deep bench and includes George Kennedy, Sally Kellerman, William Hickey, Hurd Hatfield, Mike Kellin and in small roles people like Alex Rocco and James Brolin. If you can deal with a true crime film that has quite a few falsehoods in it for the purpose of dramatic license, I'd recommend this one.

as a psychological writer I find this garners a mixed review. Tony Curtis gives a good performance in a mostly fictionalized (we now know) account of the man, Albert DeSalvo, who was hospitalized, and labeled "The Boston Strangler".

Some of the scenes are inscrutable, if not amusing. Bottomly (Henry Fonda) is presented as an erudite bureaucrat, whom his colleague says "God really sits on your shoulders" Fonda responds ..."that's a handicap I inherited from my ancestors". How disingenuous and narcissistic.

The police are as usual befuddled, Murray Hamilton is very good as a sarcastic detective, there is a cameo with a very young James Brolin, and George Kennedy. A few references to alternate lifestyles; not really sure what Hurd Hatfield represents, why he was a suspect, or why his way of life is actually relevant to this story at all....

All in all, Curtis gives a good performance, but very little of this story is even based on particles of the truth. While I agree with an earlier review, there really was no explanation, and the culprit was actually never caught: the reality is DeSalvo was kept at Walpole hospital and it was later discovered he was not also the "measuring man", who was never caught.

Also, there is the sense that this film skims the surface, throws scenarios at the audience and then moves on to the next killing. This may be worth watching if you are a fan of Curtis, but otherwise it is too highly fictionalized.

When one or two strangulations of women in their own homes starts to turn into a whole series of murders, the press climb all over it, Boston is on edge and the police are struggling. Leading a new taskforce to find the strangler, John Bottomly continues the search and, after several false leads hits it lucky with a man who appears to be the one they are looking for. However, this is only half the story as Albert DeSalvo appears perfectly normal and doesn't seem to have anything to hide even though everything points to him being the serial murderer of the title.

Not being aware of the real events behind this film, it was an interesting story of me to watch even though I had to guard myself against the truism that many "true stories" will be simplified for cinema treatment. Regardless though, the film still made for an interesting detective case but also a rather engaging look at mental illness and violence. The investigation part is nicely delivered and is quite tense – yes, we know who the killer is but the other suspects are still interesting and I never felt like I was just hanging around waiting for Curtis to show up. Once he does, the film changes tact slightly but is still interesting because Albert is so engaging a person – I was not sure what he was playing at but it was interesting to go along with Bottomly and try to piece the man together; the closing captions show the slant of the film and this may annoy the more right wing viewer, but it didn't take anything away for me.

The cast are strong and help the tone of the film. Fonda plays his role well and provides a strong focus for the film until Curtis arrives to sweep it away from under his feet. Curtis' performance is well understated and lacking in the sort of showy acting that he could easily have done (Edward Norton did a similar role in this way but the vehicle was different and it worked); instead he is both a person and a monster, someone we are not allowed to judge but rarely invited to feel sympathy for. Support is good from Kennedy, Hamilton, Kellerman and others but really it is Curtis' film and it is he that sticks in the mind. The direction seems obvious now (especially with 24 in its fourth season) but it is clever and effective, the split screen keeping the film busy even in basic sequences while also helping the tension.

Overall this is not a pacey thriller but rather a more serious drama, although it still works well as an interesting look at the case but also at the failings of the system of dealing with violent mental illness sufferers. Its point is rather bluntly delivered but getting to it is well done and Curtis' performance is probably one of his best.

Though a bit slow and perhaps too long, "The Boston Strangler" doesn't lack interest and stands as a good film based on true events. It deals with the police investigation headed to the capture of serial killer Albert De Salvo known as the as in the title ofthe film who murdered eleven women back in the early 60's and terrorized the city of Boston.

Some accuracy in the actual facts and perhaps Tony Curtis (De Salvo) in his best dramatic performance and a strong cast leaded by Henry Fonda as a police investigator (in a sort of Morgan Freeman's later role as police psychologist Alex Cross) raise this product to a very acceptable level. George Kennedy, Murray Hamilton and Sally Kellerman complete the main parts.

Split-screen sequences used by Director Richard Fleischer are not a good idea in my opinion but they don't really hurt the film.

If you're a thriller fan or you are interested in serial killers (guilty of both charges in my case) you will surely enjoy this movie.

Interesting: Tony Curtis best drama performances in my opinion -this one and the fugitive in "The Defiant Ones" ten years before- where played by the actor with similar make up in his nose.

Although there had been numerous earlier cases, 20th Century America's fascination with serial killers really began in the early 1960s, when thirteen women were found strangled to death in their Boston homes. As the murders progressed, the city was gripped by fear--and then relieved by the capture of Albert Henry DeSalvo, who confessed to the crimes. DeSalvo was considered too emotionally disturbed to bring to trial for the murders; convicted of a variety of other, more readily provable offenses, he spent the remainder of his life under lock and key and was ultimately stabbed to death by a fellow inmate in 1973.

Even at the time of DeSalvo's capture, many investigators felt that more than one killer was at work, and later reviews of the case have raised doubts about whether DeSalvo killed all, some, or any of the victims. Nonetheless, the public was satisfied, and the 1968 film THE BOSTON STRANGLER, based on the book of the same name by Gerold Frank, reflects this point of view.

As scripted by Edward Anhalt and directed by Richard Fleischer, THE BOSTON STRANGLER falls into two portions. In the first, legal expert John S. Bottomly (Henry Fonda) is ordered to establish a central office to co-ordinate the investigation and soon finds himself working with every one from hardnosed Det. Phil DiNatale (George Kennedy) to celebrated psychic John Asgeirsson (Jeff Corey.) Various leads draw them to a number of "sexual deviates," including homosexual antiques dealer Terrence Huntley (Hurd Hatfield)--but their leads prove futile and frustrating.

At mid-point the film shifts focus to Albert DeSalvo (Tony Curtis in an extremely atypical role), a quite family man who works as a repair man--and who is, unbeknownst to all around, the Boston strangler. The film follows him through a number of attacks, most particularly an attack on Dianne Cluny (Sally Kellerman, in her film debut); when Cluny survives, she provides a tiny bit of evidence, and a later coincidence leads Bottomly and DiNatale to a final solution.

By and large, the performances are remarkably solid. In 1968, Tony Curtis was best known as a romantic leading man most often seen in light comedies. Curtis lobbied hard for the role of DeSalvo, hoping it would change the course of his career, and he offers a memorable performance, particularly in the film's final scenes. Supporting actress Sally Kellerman also gives what may be her single finest performance as pivotal victim and witness Dianne Cluny, and Curtis and Kellerman's scene together is truly harrowing.

Director Richard Fleischer was noted for his love of widescreen effects, and with THE BOSTON STRANGLER he frequently divides the screen into multiple scenes, often rather like overlapping tiles. The effect is very stylish, but I found that a little went a long way, and Fleisher tends to overplay the device; by the time it is at is most artful, near the end of the film, I found it most difficult to appreciate due to its constant and somewhat wearing repetition.

The script by writer Edward Anhalt is also stylish, but it too is significantly flawed in that it never seems to go quite far enough. This is particularly true re DeSalvo; granted the film takes the point of view that DeSalvo was guilty, and granted ideas about psychology have changed considerably since 1968, but all the same I never quite believed the film's internal logic. Although there was room for it, too much was left unexplored, and in the end I felt I knew little more about the personalities involved than I did when I came in.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

A retired nurse is murdered in her apartment. More are murdered in several jurisdictions in Greater Boston, then younger women. There is no rape, but the attacks have a sexual component. Bottomley (Henry Fonda), a law professor, is appointed to lead a task force to find the killer. A failed attack, then a failed break-in, result in the arrest of De Salvo (Tony Curtis). Bottomley interrogates him, his schizophrenia emerges and he begins to confront it.

What I like best about this film is that it demonstrates that a tense thriller need not depend on the pornography of violence and blood. The attacks are substantially either not shown, or are not on screen in the scene, but their impact is described in the reactions and words of those who have to deal with the bodies. The approach is classical and intellectual. The film is interesting visually. The innovative split-screen sequences work well, introducing a kind of simultaneous dramatic irony through showing an event from two points of view at the same time - though the technique was used with greater clarity in The Thomas Crown Affair. The semi-documentary approach works well in keeping the temperature down. As a social-historical document the film is interesting from its neutral, on occasion even sympathetic, portrayal of a series of sexual deviants. The blindingly bare white interrogation room and De Salvo's overall starkly concentrate attention on the murderer's tortured expressions as he discovers the evil that he has done. Curtis delivers a superlative performance that succeeds in reconciling the warm family man with the schizophrenic. For once, a typically wooden performance is just right for the rather dry character that Fonda portrays. The supporting cast delivers uniformly good performances.

Fictional account of the Boston Strangler--a maniac who killed about 12 women in the Boston area from 1962-1964. Most of the main actors just walk through their roles--Henry Fonda and George Kennedy especially. But Tony Curtis (who doesn't appear until an hour into the film) is surprisingly good as the strangler. Most people don't think of him as a good actor but as this and "Sweet Smell of Success" proved, he COULD give out a good performance. This was a very tricky role but he pulled it off. The last half hour especially--it's basically one long confession but he's excellent.

The film is exceptionally well-directed--the split screen is a bit disorienting at times but, ultimately, it helps the film. It keeps you on edge. It's also very interesting to see what Boston looked like in 1968. The only sour spot is there is some homophobia in the movie...but this does take place in '62-'64 and they did think the strangler was a gay man.

From what I've heard this film was not a big hit when released which probably explains why it took so long to get out on DVD. It's probably one of the best serial killer movies ever made and the multiple screens look great on DVD.

Well worth seeing if just for Curtis' performance.

Despite being a one of a kind thriller, there are plenty of flaws that hold back Fleischer's 1968 film about the infamous Boston Strangler. Interesting filming concept, but lends itself to too many continuity errors and audio difficulties. Structurally very unconventional that simply doesn't work--there are fundamentals for a reason. Seems like two different films going on at once, and both lead characters are introduced so late that they have to rush to the audience's emotions. For the first half-hour, we're not even sure who we're rooting for. The film brings attention to social commentary that's applicable even today, but the fact that a lot of what's portrayed in the film didn't actually happen kind of contradicts its own statement. Entertaining, but drags on way too long with terribly dated and redundant interrogation scenes.

**½ (out of four)

This dramatization of the killing spree in Boston in the early 1960s is told in a documentary style, which serves to underscore the stark brutality of the crimes. However, the movie moves in fits and starts, instead of having a sustained narrative flow, making it difficult to become involved in the story. Curtis is OK, but the film does not offer a revealing glimpse into the killer's psyche. Fonda is fine as the lead investigator. The flashy presentation is distracting. Use of the split screen was popular in the 1960s, and here it's done to death, serving no purpose other than making the images smaller and harder to see and give the viewer a splitting headache.

Just saw this tonight on cable, and although I'm 58, I never had seen it before. Tony Curtis's performance blew me away. The simplicity and reality of his performance scared me to death. I would have to vote him the most terrifying and human movie villain of my experience. At the center of the razor-sharp writing, cinematography and direction of this film, Curtis's performance convinces me that he was the most versatile, brave and underrated actor of the late 20th Century. That the same matinée idol heartthrob who was Marilyn Monroe's paramour in Some Like It Hot played this role so brilliantly (let alone took it on at all) and also supported Lawrence Olivier and Kirk Douglas in Spartacus so well tells me that Hollywood used him well but not well enough. I challenge anyone to play an insane serial killer as well under the kind of tight scrutiny that Fleisher's camera subjected him to today without making us laugh. He made my skin crawl and at the same time I understood and pitied him. See this.

This film begins in 1962 with a several females over the age of 55 found dead in their apartments having been strangled by their attacker. Since some of the bodies had a nylon stocking tied around their necks the police used the type of knot as a way to identify his victims. Complicating matters for the police was the fact that the murders occurred in several different jurisdictions and as a result a man by the name of "John S. Bottomly" (Henry Fonda) was appointed by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, "Edward W. Brooke" (William Marshall) as the point-man of the investigation. Yet in spite of their best efforts the murders continue and soon the murderer begins to change his pattern by focusing on younger women as well. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film started off real well but got less interesting once "the Boston Strangler" (played by Tony Curtis) was identified and apprehended. Likewise, the fact that it wasn't historically accurate was also quite disappointing. In any case, I thought this film turned out to be sufficient for the time spent to watch and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

The now out-dated expermental look of this film often detracts from the subject, and it was no wonder that this style in which it was filmed didn't stay around longer.

Forgiving that, it must be said that this film is almost entirely ficticious. It has almost no claims on reality besides some of the murders and the character names. Many of the plot points are made up entirely, or distorted by untruths and rumors.

But, Tony Curtis' protrayal of De Salvo is inspired, and he carries an uncanny likeness to the actual man. Unfortunately everyone else's role in the film feels stiff and unmemorable. But some of the mistakes regarding the characters themselves (most notably De Salvo himself) and their roles in the investigation are unforgivable and misleading, chalked up to a movie that sacrifices the real story for no palatable reason.

On the whole, a severe disappointment and a text book case of "Hollywoodising" a serious moment in history.