L'Étrangleur de Boston

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.

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.

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.

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.