The Boston Strangler

It takes a lot of courage to take on a role as challenging as one of the most brutal serial murderers in United States history. Tony Curtis made you believe that he was Albert DeSalvo and he did it after years of playing the handsome leading man. He took a big chance and it paid off in some of the greatest reviews of his career, but when it came to an Oscar nomination, nothing. Tony Curtis is one of the greats in Hollywood. Too bad when he played the role of a lifetime the Academy forgot him. Also, Henry Fonda deserved a nomination for his role. This was probably one of the most intense roles of his career.

The other thing that made the film great was its innovative use of split screen. You pretty much got the creeps as you saw people living their ordinary lives on one side of the screen, while on the other side you saw the strangler stalking his victim. Also, I think that the director really did a good job by not really showing any of the attacks in progress, at least until the last one. This film truly was a great psychological thriller.

This movie is pretty good. I'm glad I managed to catch it on AMC recently.I hope you can too. It has a great story, great acting and the great use of double screen. One scene that I like during the use of double screen is the scene were Albert De Salvo is being chased through the streets of Boston. Great use of double screen. Also a great use of sound.

Tony Curtis sure proved everybody wrong. Nobody thought he could do it and his performance was widely acclaimed. Great acting by Tony. Especially in the film's climax. Richard Fleischer had the right idea for picking Tony. One thing that I think is funny is that the real Albert De Salvo made a wallet for everyone but Curtis. Curtis said, "I guess he didn't like my performance." There is another film loosely based on the Boston Strangler called simply The Strangler. It's actor in the title role, victor Buono, was said by a reviewer to have made the real Boston Strangler proud. Too bad Tony didn't. But it doesn't matter. This movie is good and Tony is great. See this movie. Even though it might be a little hard because it's out of print.

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.

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.

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.