SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Tony It's the sixties, you make a film with a Fonda in it, does anyone get where I'm going with this - yes, exit stage left. You've psychics, hypnotism and psycho analysis thrown in to this hippie idea of love would have saved him, it wasn't his fault. Fact - he was a sick, deranged animal that preyed on defenceless women. There's only one humane answer for any seriously sick animal, if there is a God it's His call regarding hope of redemption, or if he just screwed up with that one.

dougdoepke Surprisingly, the movie's neither gory nor especially violent, except for one segment. It is, however, chilling to the bone. Serial killer DeSalvo (Curtis) is really two dissociated personalities inhabiting one body. On one side is the ordinary blue-collar family man; on the other is a gruesome strangler of women. The odd thing is that the one time we see the killer, his low-key personality seems not too different from that of the family man. I guess I was expecting a Jekyll and Hyde. But that's definitely not the case, which makes the outcome even more unnerving. Curtis delivers a finely calibrated, low-key performance as DeSalvo, resisting temptation to over emote. Instead, he registers DeSalvo's inner state through twitches and quick grimaces. These understatements hint chillingly at an inner turmoil, in which the family man slowly comes to realize a second, unknown personality abiding murderously within. These flashes of self-recognition are very well done, pulling us along with the star-crossed DeSalvo.The movie itself comes in two parts. The first part concentrates on police pursuit of the killer as the bodies pile up. Nothing much happens, but interest is kept up by the colorful suspects that are pulled in. The second part is mainly DeSalvo and the effort to bring out his suppressed side, which a head doctor assures investigator Bottomley (Fonda) is lurking within. On the distaff side, Sally Kellerman delivers a wrenching turn as one of the victims. If the movie has a short-coming, I would think it's the otherwise anonymity of his many victims. Unfortunately, we know very little about them, except as cadavers. Then too, I'm no fan of split-screen, a frequent source of distraction. Here, however, the technique is used sparingly.All in all, it's a riveting film, made more so by the career central performance. Clearly, Curtis is a long way from the pretty boy fluff.(In passing—DNA evidence eventually incriminated DeSalvo in one of the murders though the other 10 remain officially unsolved. The killings however stopped after his arrest, and authorities have no doubt he was responsible for all of them. In 1973, he was stabbed to death by another prisoner.)

richieandsam THE BOSTON STRANGLER.What a great film.I only watched this movie because it is based on a true story about a serial killer in America. I am fascinated with serial killers anyway, i am interested in what makes them kill, what makes them not care about human life.This film was really well made. The effects were not great... when Tony Curtis was driving his car, you could see so easily that he was not actually driving the car... but then this film was made in 1968... they didn't have the special effects that we have now.The story was good... it is about Albert DeSalvo. He was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. He also confessed to the murder of 13 women...Tony Curtis did a fantastic job playing DeSalvo. He was believable. The movie also starred Henry Fonda and George Kennedy who also did a great job.The film had some really nice shots in it... a lot of the film was split screen with 2 or more pictures on the screen playing at the same time. It was really well done, but I did find that if there were about 4 or more pictures at once, it was difficult to see everything that was happening.Obviously, this is a movie based on a true story... so I don;t know hoe much of it is true and how much is made up... but it was a very entertaining movie and really well made.I will give this film 8 out of 10.I really liked it, and would watch it again.To read more of my reviews, please like my Facebook page:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl

LeonLouisRicci A Split Screen presentation of the Pursuit of a Killer with a Split Personality. This Tense, Riveting expose was one of the First Films to deal with Sexual Perversion with Stark, Realistic Dialog and the Aftermath of these Type of Crimes.However, the Movie Suffers in the Third Act when Abruptly, the Focus Turns from Apprehension of the Strangler to the Mental Health Diagnosis of the Suspect. The Talky, Clinical Conclusion might be the Politically Correct, Technically Correct way to Deal with the Subject, but, for the Cinema it is a Killer.A lot has been said of Tony Curtis Playing Against Type but the Allotted Screen Time is Not Enough to Provide any Depth or Explore any of the Contradictions of the Character. The Screenplay seems Unable or Unwilling to Go There. Once the Murderer is On Screen it all seems Rushed and rather Detached. Given that the Boston Strangler and not the Police Investigation Screams to be the Focus of the Film.