#369 The Boston Strangler

Watched: October 11 2025

Director: Richard Fleischer

Starring: Tony Curtis, Henry Fonda, George Kennedy, Mike Kellin, Hurd Hatfield, Carolyn Conwell, William Marshall

Year: 1968

Runtime: 1h 56min

From 1962 to 1964, Boston was terrorized by a serial killer who raped and murdered women, dubbed “the Boston Strangler”. Albert DeSalvo confessed to the crimes in 1965 and only three years later The Boston Strangler was released, detailing the crimes and the investigation. While this could have been a sensationalized and exploitative movie trying ot cash in on horrific events, it luckily comes across as a respectful and very accurate portrayal of a horrible case of serial murder.

It’s still gruesome – don’t get us wrong. Just not overly salacious.

Right from the start, this drew us in. We loved the different angles/framing/multiple images (whatever we should call it – if you’ve seen the film you understand what we mean) used throughout the film. The first part of the movie depicts the investigation, and we really enjoyed having the focus on the investigators rather than the culprit – let’s highlight the heroes, not the monsters! We appreciated that the sexual violence suffered by the victims was only implied rather than explicitly shown. Fleischer manages to convey the horrific nature of the crimes without sexualizing the scenes, which is something more filmmakers should attempt at times…

This is what we mean by the whole different angles/framing/multiple image-thingy we mentioned. No idea what it’s called, but we loved it!

The main investigator, Phil DiNatale, is played by George Kennedy, which we have to admit took some getting used to. We found ourselves waiting for lieutenant Frank Drebin to come along and (hilariously) solve the crime… Instead, he is joined by John Bottomly (Fonda), the newly appointed head of the Strangler task force. It’s always beautiful to see when different branches of law inforcement manage to coordinate their efforts and come together to solve a case.

One might even say they formed some sort of… Police Squad!
…we’ll see ourselves out.

And effort was definitely made! We loved seeing a bunch of creeps being arrested and/or interrogated for doing creepy stuff. Now, we don’t mean to kink shame – you do you, boo – but once you make your kinks someone else’s problem without their consent, you deserve to be made (at least) as uncomfortable as the ones you drag into your sexual fantasies.

Although questioning a man for murder simply for owning the collected works of the Marquis de Sade might be overstepping a bit… Who doesn’t have that on their bookshelf?

Eventually, the POV switches from the investigation to the killer himself. We are brought along as DeSalvo (Curtis) tricks his way into women’s apartments where he sexually assaults and strangles them. But we also get to see his family life, as he was married and had young children at home. Finally, the last part of the movie is focused on his confession and his mental state.

His seemingly normal and happy family life somehow makes the crimes even more unsettling… (Also, side note, his wife looks like Liv Ullmann… Well, Carolyn Conwell, the actress, did at least.)

There’s so much here we loved. Visually, it’s very stylish and cool, and we feel it tells the story without exploiting the victims too much. The Boston Strangler has no score and the silence works really well. It’s also extremely quotable, and we enjoyed the critique of the inherent violence in U.S. society. The pacing is a bit uneven, and the last act felt a bit long and is less engaging than the first part. Still, the final reenactment by DeSalvo/Curtis is very chilling and an unnerving end to an excellent movie.

Turns out making him take a long hard look in the mirror actually had the desired effect. Have we tried this in other interrogations..? Like, really tried it? Has this solution been staring us in the (mirror image of our) face all this time?

Ok, we know this is dodgy, but we love serial killer stories… What can we say – we’re white women, it’s our culture. So we know quite a lot about this case, and as far as we can remember The Boston Strangler is a very accurate depiction of events. There has been a lot of speculation about DeSalvo’s guilt though. Part of his confession contains details that he would be unlikely to know unless he was there, but other in other parts he gets very basic things wrong. However, a few years ago DNA evidence proved his involvement in at least one of the rapes and murders, so he was certainly not entirely innocent. The question remains though – was he the only strangler? Or were there several killers stalking the women of Boston? We may never know for certain.

We only know that thirteen women between the ages of 19 and 85 were sexually assaulted and brutally murdered, possibly by the same perpetrator…

What we learned: As fascinating as we admittedly find them, serial killers are pretty much pathetic in real life…

MVP: Probably Edward W. Brooke (Marshall). Assembling a task force is never wrong. Shoutout to DiNatale and Bottomly as well though!

Next time: The Devil Rides Out (1968)

#286 In Cold Blood

Watched: December 6 2020

Director: Richard Brooks

Starring: Robert Blake, Scott Wilson, John Forsythe, Paul Stewart

Year: 1967

Runtime: 2h 14min

Source

Perry (Blake) is a slightly simple ex-con who dreams of fame and fortune. He breaks his parole so he can return to Kansas in order to meet up with old cell mate Dick (Wilson), who can offer him a sure thing. Monetary wise, that is. Not a date or anything.

If you can think of a single date idea which would require a trip to the hardware store in preparation, we’d like to know. Then, leave your contact information and the number for your local police.

Source

Another old prison buddy has told Dick about a hidden safe in the basement of a farmer, and the pair plan to get their hands on it. However, what could have been a simple burglary soon turns into a bloodbath…

“Bubble bath. I said I wanted a BUBBLE bath. You need to get your hearing aid fixed.”

Source

We don’t want to reveal too much here even though it’s a 50 year old film based on an even older book based on a yet older real crime… Suffice to say investigators are soon on the criminals’ trails. But what really happened? And who pulled the trigger?

Also, who wore the easily identifiable shoes to a crime scene???

Source

This movie is amazing and you should watch it. We loved the build up to the crime and the fact that we then skipped neatly to the aftermath without seeing it play out. It is excellently structured, well acted and overall really well done. The 2+ hours fly by!

Like the lit-up club, casino and hotel signs in old-timey montages! Imagine “Mas Que Nada” playing in the background.

Source

Now, Dick is a dick from the beginning. Perry is perhaps a bit more sympathetic, but they both share the same anger issues. They are disenfranchised young men with a murderous streak and little left to lose.

They are also traumatized by abusive childhoods and war. Sorry, it’s hard to make hilarious captions about this story…

Source

As the movie plays out, you keep forgetting that Perry and Dick have killed an entire family – probably because you don’t actually see them do it. Which is somewhat unsettling and uncomfortable when you find yourself giggling at their shenanigans and sort of hoping they’ll get away.

On the other hand, we’re also introduced to this ridiculously wholesome family, who certainly did not deserve their fate. Our loyalties are torn, is all we’re saying. And we guess that’s sort of the point…

Source

Real question though, are trials in the USA that revenge-driven, or are they just that way in movies? Because for us rational (some would say cold and unfeeling, we prefer logical and Spock-like) Norwegians, emotions and ideas of revenge are not what should decide the outcome of a trial… Just a thought there, America.

What we learned: American trials are insane… Also, sometimes things just don’t make sense.

Next time: In the Heat of the Night (1967)