A Disappointing Continuation

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Hard-hitting when it was first released, "The Boston Strangler still remains an effective experience more than forty-five years after it was made. It is perhaps inevitable that there are a few elements that may be considered dated by some viewers. Though the movie got an "R" rating back in 1968, by today's standards the movie would get a PG-13 rating, maybe even a PG rating - which may not satisfy some viewers accustomed to stronger stuff. There are some slurs against homosexuals that are not very politically correct. And the movie's portrayal of the Boston public often makes the viewer feel that Bostonians were not in such a great panic during the murder spree when they surely were.However, the movie still has enough merit to impress modern day viewers. Though director Richard Fleischer does not sensationalize things and portray the murders as horrific as they were, the low key feel of the movie more often than not gives the movie a much more realistic edge. The police investigation is shown correctly to be a lot of hard and tedious work. Also, Fleischer's occasional use of multi images and hand held camera-work gives the movie an almost documentary feeling.The second half of the movie - when the Strangler is captured and dealt with - is also interesting because we get to see a serial killer who is not a raving maniac. We get to see someone who is truly sick and doesn't seem to realize it. In fact, the viewer may almost start to feel sorry for this pathetic criminal. Much credit for this has to go to Tony Curtis, who manages to switch his character from one believable personality to another with no stress or strain right to the end. The ending, by the way, is very powerful because it leaves the viewer hanging; "What now?" is the question that is asked. It's a question that can't be easily answered.

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.)

Excellent recount of the mass Boston murderer Albert De Salvo. Ironically, Tony Curtis, who appears in the main lead, does not come into the film until the first hour is over. When he does come in, he gave an absolutely mesmerizing performance that should have at least received an Oscar nomination.The first part of the film really deals with how off the police were in their assumptions of who the killer was. We see a variety of perverts questioned. They go by the board as the killings go on and on.Henry Fonda plays the criminologist who was able to break into Curtis's mind and finally get him to recognize what he had done.There is a fine supporting cast headed by "cops" George Kennedy and Murray Hamilton (Mr. Robinson in "The Graduate," the year before.) Look for William Hickey in an off-the-wall one scene steal grabber as a perverted for seminary student hauled in for questioning.In a way, the film reminded me of the great Rod Steiger hit "No Way To Treat A Lady"

When Tony Curtis took this role he was already a veteran of about 60 movies, and was most known for the sometimes goofy romantic comedies he was in. But here he is in the title character of Albert DeSalvo, a laborer in Boston who became known as the probable Boston Strangler. I say probable because DeSalvo was never accused and tried. But as this movie tells the story, there is little doubt.The second key character is the always superb Henry Fonda as attorney and lecturer John S. Bottomly who reluctantly becomes the leader of a task force to consolidate all the "strangler" evidence at one place, because the various murders had happened in a number of different jurisdictions and a consistent effort was needed. The third key character is George Kennedy as Det. Phil DiNatale who was the lead investigator in many of the murders and who tracked down an unlimited number of leads.The editing technique used here is unusual but worked very well. Often at critical times in the story a split screen was used, for example to simultaneously show what was happening outside an entry door and what was inside the room. In some scenes as many as 6 split screens are used simultaneously. Overall a very good drama, and Tony Curtis shows he can act, and not just a pretty face. In fact, he wore a prosthesis on his nose to make him look a bit more menacing.SPOILERS: It turned out that DeSalvo had a split personality, and in his interviews with a Psychiatist probably had been that way since a fairly young age. In his one personality he was a calm, loving family man with a wife and children. But when something would upset him, like the assassination of JFK, the other personality would take over and he would commit the crimes, killing women by strangulation. According to the movie's dramatization, he had trouble actually remembering the crimes. He was not tried, but committed to a mental institution.