The film was made in 1968 but it shows no signs of aging. The story is often told in split screen, or better yet, multi-screen. Often, we as an audience get to witness a scene or a sequence of scenes from two to six points of view, so I truly mean it when I say if you look away you might miss something.
http://www.theparallaxreview.com/on_cable/the_boston_strangler.html
Tony Curtis gave the best performance. He received a Golden Globe nomination. He should have been nominated for the Oscar.
tom89zigman 3 months ago
@benathanasiou I guess not. They'll probably never have any way of knowing for sure.
stitchesful 3 months ago
@benathanasiou You're right. I don't know much about it, but I don't know if that means that I shouldn't talk about it at all. I know for certain that the family of Mary Sullivan (the youngest victim) doesn't believe that he was the strangler. Yes, there's a lot of evidence to indicate that he was, but I do know that with DNA evidence they're now questioning it.
stitchesful 3 months ago
Well the answe to that question is (as a famous Detective would've once said.) "Quite Elemantery my dear Watson." Well when a mass murder knocks upon you door, he doesn't say "Yo, lady! Opens this door, here. I'm the Stranglah, see."
It most certainly be a person who seems trustworthy, like a plumber or a supor.
Looks like a nice movie though. And i believe that the true identity of the Boston Strangler is still to this day unknown. an episode of the original Law & Order is based on this case.
codename617 4 months ago
There is now DNA evidence that Albert DeSalvo wasn't the Boston Strangler. I don't know or understand the facts, but I guess there is now physical evidence that he definitely wasn't the murderer of at least one of the victims.
stitchesful 5 months ago
Boston Stragnler is one of the most scary movies I have ever seen
92af 5 months ago
Tony Curtis was great in this ; an underrated film if not wholly accurate -maybe his best performance
TheKenfig 8 months ago 2