To me, this movie is perfection.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

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

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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.

THE BOSTON STRANGLER tells the true-life story of a serial killer who terrorised the women of Boston, Massachusetts, in the early 1960s. I came to this film as somebody totally unaware of the facts surrounding the case, so watching the story unfold and develop made for an interesting film. My only complaint really is with the style; director Richard Fleischer insists on using various split-screen techniques to tell his story, and I think they detract from it.This isn't just brief, de Palma-level split screen; the entire film is full of shots which roll on and off the screen, and are manipulated in various ways. To be honest, it's fairly distracting, and comes across as dated more than anything else; I get the impression that split-screen was a bit of a fad, and I'm happy it hasn't taken off to a great degree.Otherwise, the movie is a mixed bag. Casting pretty boy Tony Curtis as the killer was a good stroke, as the star acquits himself well with the role, while Henry Fonda and George Kennedy are fine as the dogged cops on his tail. However, it's fair to say that this film is a bit overlong, with over an hour before we get to meet the killer himself. It becomes more interesting towards the end, when it takes more of a psychological approach to the proceedings, but it's never electrifying in the same way the likes of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS were electrifying. An interesting curio, then.

I've seen this one twice before and thought it to be a really good film. Since then, I've gotten more familiar with the actual case of The Boston Strangler, and it is has become clear that the case will most likely never be completely solved. The fact that Albert DeSalvo was indeed found guilty of one rape and murder and the 'Green Man' rapes, still does not justify all of the assumptions that this film makes, particularly the one about DeSalvo supposedly suffering from DID (formerly known as MPD)...If you are willing to look past these glaring 'errors', you might find an artfully directed anthology of murder scenes and investigations, full of split-screens and haunting decors of a grim early '60s Boston; pretty good, but it hardly becomes a gripping story until the last part (when Bottomly and DeSalvo go 'head to head'). Then there is the acting of Tony Curtis, who is not seen until after 57 minutes into the film. I found his acting to be switching back and forth between very good, adequate and, at a few times (especially when he re-enacts the alleged first murder), totally unconvincing.All highs and lows considered, I'm still coming up with a very decent rating; 7 out of 10.

Apparently, Desalvo, told people in the Bridgewater Asylum, that he faked the hallucinations, since he knew, if he was declared insane he would not be convicted and avoid prison. He had confessed to his attorney F. Lee Bailey, that he had murdered twelve women and he could not remember the name of the 13th victim, except to say that she had died of heart attack in his arms. There was also a scheme concocted by himself, that his family lawyer would collect the reward money and give the bulk of the money to Desalvo's wife and children, since he knew he would never get out of jail facing multiple rape charges. The movie is based on the book which is complex, since there were four other suspects, who were either mentally ill, lying and or evidence circumstantial. The only surviving victim and witnesses could not identify Desalvo, as the strangler and the positive identify was an inmate at the same asylum, by the name of George Nasser, and he was the only one who fit the profile of the strangler as determined by a panel of experts, but he was never charged. As far as the acting, Tony Curtis's acting was over rated. Any actor could have done his role. Someone like Robert Blake would have been the perfect choice. The fact is, he solicited for that role, by gaining weight and perfecting his accent. The split scenes take away lot of the suspense and the superimposed scenes with Fonda and Curtis lack depth. This is a good movie-a safe seven rating.