"-But what can you expect from a society that itself spends 44% of its tax dollars on killing?"
Quite unusual way of narration, with the split-vision technique, which elevates this movie a bit and makes it more interesting. Like I've mention before, movies about serial killers seldom turn out to be masterpieces (except for Henry; A Portraiy of a serial killer, according to some critics).
This movie on the other hand was neither butchered nor particularly praised by the critics. One of the most interesting things about this movie, is the fact that it was filmed just a couple of years after the real incidents. If that fact drew much critism from the public, I have no idea.
Tony Curtis plays the role of the Boston Strangler; Albert Desalvo, spendidly. Henry Fonda who plays the head person of the special Boston Strangler commission, do so with his standard (well) performance.
It's funny how the average police detective, immediately started to suspect homosexuals (or "homophilias" as they refer to in the movie). Today, we know from experience that homosexual serial killers prey on male victims, not female.
Also, I think it's funny to watch that the theory of Desalvo suffered from suppressed memories during the actual murders, was so naturally accepted by the police during the hearings.
The filmmakers even films it from Desalvo's view, how he couldn't remember any of the deeds. That says a lot of the time era.
Today, the absolute majority of criminologists question that theory of killer's total memory loss about their deeds.
I give this movie a strong 60%, because for me it didn't stand out enough to be truely remembered. It lacked some more strong characters and some of the police office scenes just felt slightly dull and lengthy.
Despite all this, I think this movie is valuable as a study of it's time.