Director: Richard Fleischer
Writers: Edward Anhalt (screenplay)
Gerold Frank (book)
CAST---
Tony Curtis ... Albert DeSalvo
Henry Fonda ... John S. Bottomly
George Kennedy ... Det. Phil DiNatale
Mike Kellin ... Julian Soshnick
Hurd Hatfield ... Terence Huntley
Murray Hamilton ... Det. Frank McAfee
Jeff Corey ... John Asgeirsson
Sally Kellerman ... Dianne Cluny
Runtime: 116 min
Writers: Edward Anhalt (screenplay)
Gerold Frank (book)
CAST---
Tony Curtis ... Albert DeSalvo
Henry Fonda ... John S. Bottomly
George Kennedy ... Det. Phil DiNatale
Mike Kellin ... Julian Soshnick
Hurd Hatfield ... Terence Huntley
Murray Hamilton ... Det. Frank McAfee
Jeff Corey ... John Asgeirsson
Sally Kellerman ... Dianne Cluny
Runtime: 116 min
THE BOSTON STRANGLER (1968)
I’ve spent a alot of time watching serial killer films (not as much as my cohort Jorge, but enough to know
my way around a bloody, mutilated corpse), and they have usually turned out kind of shitty. To be
honest, I think I've only seen a handful of serial killer movies that have been good. How much is a
handful? It's about five...how's that? A handful of serial killer movies is about five movies. But after
seeing this 1968 film about the Boston Strangler (obviously) I'll have to either make room on my hand or
use my other one because I've found another serial killer film to add to my list of classic, tense psycho
masterpieces.
Based on the book by Gerold Frank, which was in turn based on the true events that took place in
Boston from June 1962 to March 1963, this masterfully directed and edited film looks more like an
episode of '24' than your standard serial killer fare, and that's what makes it stand out from the crowd.
Cleverly using split-screen technology, which was cutting edge tech back in the sixties, the film paints
the portrait of a city under siege. A madman, played surprisingly well by Tony Curtis, is on the loose
strangling women. There is no apparent motive and nothing to connect the victims. The police hit the
mean streets talking to hookers and bums, trying to track down the killer, but hit dead ends (pardon the
pun). They even call in a psychic to help them pinpoint the killer, but that only leads to a suspect too
good to be true. Meanwhile bodies keep piling up as the seemingly unstoppable psycho continues
unhindered by the press or the knowledge that every cop in Boston is out to get him.
Halfway through the movie we meet Albert DeSalvo (Curtis), a seemingly meek family man who goes
about his evenings having dinner with his family and watching tv with his kids. But we are unaware of the
fact that DeSalvo is the strangler, and as a matter of fact, so is he. Possessing a split personality,
DeSalvo manages to trick his way into the apartments of unsuspecting women, strangles them violently,
then leaves and goes about his day as if nothing happened. One day, while out on a strangling hunt, he
breaks into a girl's apartment and finds her boyfriend standing there. DeSalvo takes off and the guy
chases him, finally catching him and getting him arrested. Ultimately, the Boston Strangler is caught
breaking into an apartment, and not killing someone. What follows in the third act is a bit of a departure
from the rest of the film, which was fast-paced and very entertaining. We get DeSalvo in a padded room
coming to terms with his other self and realizing what he did. While interesting from an acting standpoint,
it slows the finale down, and that's why the film is only getting four coffins.
In the end, this is a classic bit of serial killer filmmaking. Director Richard Fleischer commands the
material, which could have gone a thousand different ways, with ease. The cast of faceless cops are
good, and believable. Tony Curtis, as I said, is top notch, and I would say this is his best performance
ever. I can't recommend this film enough. It shares more in common with David Fincher's "ZODIAC" than
any recent blood and guts serial killer movies, but its the realism and pacing that really make the picture
work. I also recommend the book, which is just as thrilling, and more detailed than the film could ever be.
- Jose Prendes
my way around a bloody, mutilated corpse), and they have usually turned out kind of shitty. To be
honest, I think I've only seen a handful of serial killer movies that have been good. How much is a
handful? It's about five...how's that? A handful of serial killer movies is about five movies. But after
seeing this 1968 film about the Boston Strangler (obviously) I'll have to either make room on my hand or
use my other one because I've found another serial killer film to add to my list of classic, tense psycho
masterpieces.
Based on the book by Gerold Frank, which was in turn based on the true events that took place in
Boston from June 1962 to March 1963, this masterfully directed and edited film looks more like an
episode of '24' than your standard serial killer fare, and that's what makes it stand out from the crowd.
Cleverly using split-screen technology, which was cutting edge tech back in the sixties, the film paints
the portrait of a city under siege. A madman, played surprisingly well by Tony Curtis, is on the loose
strangling women. There is no apparent motive and nothing to connect the victims. The police hit the
mean streets talking to hookers and bums, trying to track down the killer, but hit dead ends (pardon the
pun). They even call in a psychic to help them pinpoint the killer, but that only leads to a suspect too
good to be true. Meanwhile bodies keep piling up as the seemingly unstoppable psycho continues
unhindered by the press or the knowledge that every cop in Boston is out to get him.
Halfway through the movie we meet Albert DeSalvo (Curtis), a seemingly meek family man who goes
about his evenings having dinner with his family and watching tv with his kids. But we are unaware of the
fact that DeSalvo is the strangler, and as a matter of fact, so is he. Possessing a split personality,
DeSalvo manages to trick his way into the apartments of unsuspecting women, strangles them violently,
then leaves and goes about his day as if nothing happened. One day, while out on a strangling hunt, he
breaks into a girl's apartment and finds her boyfriend standing there. DeSalvo takes off and the guy
chases him, finally catching him and getting him arrested. Ultimately, the Boston Strangler is caught
breaking into an apartment, and not killing someone. What follows in the third act is a bit of a departure
from the rest of the film, which was fast-paced and very entertaining. We get DeSalvo in a padded room
coming to terms with his other self and realizing what he did. While interesting from an acting standpoint,
it slows the finale down, and that's why the film is only getting four coffins.
In the end, this is a classic bit of serial killer filmmaking. Director Richard Fleischer commands the
material, which could have gone a thousand different ways, with ease. The cast of faceless cops are
good, and believable. Tony Curtis, as I said, is top notch, and I would say this is his best performance
ever. I can't recommend this film enough. It shares more in common with David Fincher's "ZODIAC" than
any recent blood and guts serial killer movies, but its the realism and pacing that really make the picture
work. I also recommend the book, which is just as thrilling, and more detailed than the film could ever be.
- Jose Prendes
N / A
OVERALL
BLOOD
BEASTS
BREASTS
