A number of reviewers, especially those who claim to be 'true crime buffs' dismiss this fim as boring, average, slow and not really true crime. They are wrong on every count. I can only presume they were expecting some graphic, violent retelling of the Boston Strangler crimes and they completely missed the point. This is an intelligent and gripping account of first rate journalism, police incompetence and the likely truth behind these shocking murders. The sexism shown to Loretta McLaughlin and Jean Cole was very real and not something drummed up to satisfy a 2020s audience as some claim and despite that, these two women did more to unearth the truth about the Boston Strangler killings than the police. The performances by Kiera Knightley and Carrie Coon are subtle and believable, indeed the whole cast is good. It shows that one doesn't need relentless action and over the top histrionics to tell a good story. This is the realistic side of true crime: hard work, dogged determination and the courage to face the horrific nature of these crimes and keep searching for the truth. I suspect that what some of these, presumably male viewers, did not like is that it is the two women and their remarkable work that is the focus of this film and not simply the Strangler. Personally I think it is good to see another side of the story and one that is not so well known.
109 Reviews
Watchable and well-acted, but found myself losing interest
rcdoubletree2 April 2023
I am a true crime junkie and was looking forward to this, especially with Keira Knightley & the local acting legend, Chris Cooper, who is from my neck of the woods in Greater Boston. But I found myself bored and almost falling asleep at times. It's an interesting untold part of the story, until now - but I expected more, being produced by Ridley Scott. It just lacks a lot of feeling and seems to drag. I don't know if I was just expecting too much, because it is a watchable film with quality acting, wardrobe and locations. I rarely find myself waiting for the end of film that is not super long, but this managed to disappoint in that way. I can't completely bash it though, it was okay. Just okay. 6/10.
We've seen it all before, but it's still worth watching
ValDudka21 March 2023
It's an interesting movie with a frightening story, where by the title it may seem that the whole movie will be about Boston Strangler, but in reality, the main focus is on character of Keira Knightley who gave an excellent performance. Many people didn't like the "too dark" style of the film, but as for me, it gave the movie "feelings of fear and cold".
There are some moments that I didn't particularly like: little attention was paid to the relationship between the main character Loretta with her husband, and overall the frames with the family were inserted very chaotically. Also, the ending came out too crumble and confusing. But if you like movies such as Zodiac, Se7en, Prisoners, you should know these movies are certainly better :) But most likely you won't regret the time spent watching Boston Strangler.
There are some moments that I didn't particularly like: little attention was paid to the relationship between the main character Loretta with her husband, and overall the frames with the family were inserted very chaotically. Also, the ending came out too crumble and confusing. But if you like movies such as Zodiac, Se7en, Prisoners, you should know these movies are certainly better :) But most likely you won't regret the time spent watching Boston Strangler.
Interesting and Entertaining
tm-sheehan26 March 2023
My Review-
Boston Strangler
My Rating 7/10 Streaming on Disney
This very interesting story is not a remake of any of the previous movie or television adaptations about the horrific murders of at least 11 women from the Boston area between 1962 and 1964.
It's the untold story of the unsung heroines two reporters Loretta McLaughlin played by Keira Knightly and Jean Cole played by Carrie Coon.
These two women were the first to link the murders of at least 11 women in the Boston area between in the early 1960's to one man known as The Boston Strangler by examining the evidence and the similarities in each case .
They worked as women reporters for The Record American Newspaper later The Boston Globe who were assigned to cover "women's stories " fashion and social events while their male colleagues got the real tough news stories of the day.
Loretta is first to request that she be assigned to cover the murders after she discovers the link but is road blocked by her boss until she is taken seriously.
Later her more experienced colleague Jean is assigned to cover the story with her which at first Loretta resents .
This movie is not a crime thriller that part of the story has been told before .
Of course it covers the background of these horrific crimes but the emphasis is on the two women reporters and the obstacles that the Police and their own bosses put up to hinder their investigation.
The Police investigation was shoddy to say the least and the magazine bosses didn't think the women were capable enough to report such a great story.
Keira Knightley is impressive as the determined Loretta who is trying to balance her home life with her career and Carrie Coon is equally impressive as the more worldly Jean who Loretta at first resents as this is her story.
Boston Strangler is not a great film but it's an interesting well acted and well produced.
I found the mood a bit somber and thought it needed a bit of a jolt here and there .
I found the sepia dark tones a little depressing but as the end credits rolled around the importance of this story became obvious these women were pioneering as far as journalism was concerned.
Matt Ruskin wrote the screenplay and directed the film .
I just wondered if a different director may have elevated Boston Strangler to greater heights.
It lacked the impact for me of the recent Maria Schrader movie She Said also about 2 courageous women journalists however it's well worth a look at.
My Rating 7/10 Streaming on Disney
This very interesting story is not a remake of any of the previous movie or television adaptations about the horrific murders of at least 11 women from the Boston area between 1962 and 1964.
It's the untold story of the unsung heroines two reporters Loretta McLaughlin played by Keira Knightly and Jean Cole played by Carrie Coon.
These two women were the first to link the murders of at least 11 women in the Boston area between in the early 1960's to one man known as The Boston Strangler by examining the evidence and the similarities in each case .
They worked as women reporters for The Record American Newspaper later The Boston Globe who were assigned to cover "women's stories " fashion and social events while their male colleagues got the real tough news stories of the day.
Loretta is first to request that she be assigned to cover the murders after she discovers the link but is road blocked by her boss until she is taken seriously.
Later her more experienced colleague Jean is assigned to cover the story with her which at first Loretta resents .
This movie is not a crime thriller that part of the story has been told before .
Of course it covers the background of these horrific crimes but the emphasis is on the two women reporters and the obstacles that the Police and their own bosses put up to hinder their investigation.
The Police investigation was shoddy to say the least and the magazine bosses didn't think the women were capable enough to report such a great story.
Keira Knightley is impressive as the determined Loretta who is trying to balance her home life with her career and Carrie Coon is equally impressive as the more worldly Jean who Loretta at first resents as this is her story.
Boston Strangler is not a great film but it's an interesting well acted and well produced.
I found the mood a bit somber and thought it needed a bit of a jolt here and there .
I found the sepia dark tones a little depressing but as the end credits rolled around the importance of this story became obvious these women were pioneering as far as journalism was concerned.
Matt Ruskin wrote the screenplay and directed the film .
I just wondered if a different director may have elevated Boston Strangler to greater heights.
It lacked the impact for me of the recent Maria Schrader movie She Said also about 2 courageous women journalists however it's well worth a look at.
Interesting and informative but ultimately uninvolving
smoke019 March 2023
I had seen the Tony Curtis movie, and had also learned that DeSalvo may not have been responsible for all the killings, but that was all I really knew about the case, so this movie filled in a lot of the gaps, and while it featured a lot of interesting information, I did wonder why the epilogue did not include anything about the person of interest named Dempsey, who I then had to search online to find out that he was a fictionalized character based on a man named Charles Terry, who was suspected of being the original Boston Strangler.
I did expect more of a sense of urgency; the film just seemed to ramble along on one flat note, whereas films like this tend to, via very typical means of direction, acting, soundtrack, camera angles, etc., produce more tension and suspense, even if only on the part of the characters in the story. There was just no excitement here or any feeling of accomplishment, either from Carrie or Keira, and I have to note that Keira was strangely stiff. Her face never seemed to change expression, and while I didn't mind her accent at all, not expecting the characters to all have the typical Bah-ston accent, I was more put off by her total lack of affect, and I really hope it was simply due to some medical procedure like Botox and not that she is just losing her touch. In fact, it was strange to see more animation in the still photos shown in the epilogue of the actual woman she played..
So while the film has an interesting and informative storlyline, it just feels totally flat and uninvolving, and you will really have to make an effort to stay focused..
I did expect more of a sense of urgency; the film just seemed to ramble along on one flat note, whereas films like this tend to, via very typical means of direction, acting, soundtrack, camera angles, etc., produce more tension and suspense, even if only on the part of the characters in the story. There was just no excitement here or any feeling of accomplishment, either from Carrie or Keira, and I have to note that Keira was strangely stiff. Her face never seemed to change expression, and while I didn't mind her accent at all, not expecting the characters to all have the typical Bah-ston accent, I was more put off by her total lack of affect, and I really hope it was simply due to some medical procedure like Botox and not that she is just losing her touch. In fact, it was strange to see more animation in the still photos shown in the epilogue of the actual woman she played..
So while the film has an interesting and informative storlyline, it just feels totally flat and uninvolving, and you will really have to make an effort to stay focused..
standard investigative reporter movie
SnoopyStyle29 March 2023
It's 1962 Boston. Loretta McLaughlin (Keira Knightley) is a junior reporter stuck in the Lifestyle section with all the other girls. Jean Cole (Carrie Coon) is the only woman doing any hard investigative news. Their boss Jack Maclaine (Chris Cooper) keeps rejecting Loretta's story ideas until she notices some similarities between three murders. She is the first to write about the Boston Strangler while struggling to maintain her home life. Detective Conley (Alessandro Nivola) investigates the frustrating case.
It's a standard investigative reporter movie. It doesn't go overboard with the drama and flash. The mute color tones infiltrate the story. Keira Knightley is doing the work and there are some great actors here. There are no car chases. It's a lot of reading through boxes of files. This is not trying to make this into an action thriller. I would like these smart people to consider the final conclusion earlier. In that sense, the title should be changed.
It's a standard investigative reporter movie. It doesn't go overboard with the drama and flash. The mute color tones infiltrate the story. Keira Knightley is doing the work and there are some great actors here. There are no car chases. It's a lot of reading through boxes of files. This is not trying to make this into an action thriller. I would like these smart people to consider the final conclusion earlier. In that sense, the title should be changed.
A solid serial killer period piece.
larsgustavsson917 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Not many films has been made based upon the true story of "The Boston Strangler". The one with Tony Curtis from -68 being the only one prior to this one. Not counting the horror versions but they are really only inspired by and then I'm being kind.
It's not that strange really that so few movies has been made about this serial killer. The fact it that the pointed out killer "Albert DeSalvo" has never been proved to actually being the killer. He has without a doubt commited one of the murders. 12 unsolved murders remains and there are lots of questionmarks there. It just doesn't add up. Anyway, this film handles the case from a journalists' point of view, more so specifically from real life reporter Loretta McLaughlins point of view and how she wrote and reported on the Boston strangler murder case.
The script is good. The acting is solid and the direction is well done. So is the photography and the production over all. The picture reminded me a lot of "Zodiak" (2007). Another film about an unsolved serial killer case. It has the same vibe to it.
I think"The Boston Strangler" (2023) is a very good film. Just don't expect a 100% solution.
Do I as a true crime nerd believe "Albert DeSalvo" was the "The Boston strangler". No, not really. There's just way to many things that doesn't add up. Guilty of 1 or two of the murders; he might be. Actually proven of 1 by DNA in 2013) Thing is, the nick "The Boston Strangler" was created before the murders he actually might be guilty of. So for those, the ones commited by "The Boston Strangler". Nah!
It's not that strange really that so few movies has been made about this serial killer. The fact it that the pointed out killer "Albert DeSalvo" has never been proved to actually being the killer. He has without a doubt commited one of the murders. 12 unsolved murders remains and there are lots of questionmarks there. It just doesn't add up. Anyway, this film handles the case from a journalists' point of view, more so specifically from real life reporter Loretta McLaughlins point of view and how she wrote and reported on the Boston strangler murder case.
The script is good. The acting is solid and the direction is well done. So is the photography and the production over all. The picture reminded me a lot of "Zodiak" (2007). Another film about an unsolved serial killer case. It has the same vibe to it.
I think"The Boston Strangler" (2023) is a very good film. Just don't expect a 100% solution.
Do I as a true crime nerd believe "Albert DeSalvo" was the "The Boston strangler". No, not really. There's just way to many things that doesn't add up. Guilty of 1 or two of the murders; he might be. Actually proven of 1 by DNA in 2013) Thing is, the nick "The Boston Strangler" was created before the murders he actually might be guilty of. So for those, the ones commited by "The Boston Strangler". Nah!
Excellent piece of work but for fans of the genre.
smaniatopoulos23 March 2023
Concise and tight direction. An interesting script. An infamous serial killer that may or may not have been caught. A story of a journalist that went above and beyond to discover the truth.
No, it's not Zodiac by Fincher, it's a new movie about the Boston Strangler. The source material and the cast are excellent, the subject matter is fascinating and the story is famous but long forgotten. This is indeed a movie that in the hands of a great director like Fincher would make the viewer sit on the edge of their sit. But the writer and director of this movie opts for slow pace, bland murder scenes and makes some odd choices that seem to bring down the tension and the suspense. Something like a reverse Hitchcock.
However, the genre of investigative cinema is always fascinating and whether the movie is called Zodiac, Zero Dark Thirty or Spotlight, there is always something to savor.
In this case, it is the impeccable acting by Ms Knightly who seems to carry the movie with ease and proves yet again that she is a fantastic actress that has lately been overlooked. Her silent yet expressive performance is fantastic. She is a woman of few words but a thousand expressions. Without her, this movie would be way more boring and bland, but she saves the day, Omar-Sharif-in-Dr-Zhivago-style.
However this movie does get a little flat, and maybe a little disappointing in its final act, unlike Zodiac where Fincher made you completely freak out! But not every movie can be a masterpiece.
A must watch for fans of this genre, and generally highly recommended.
Even if this is not your favorite kind of movie, it still is very much worth seeing.
No, it's not Zodiac by Fincher, it's a new movie about the Boston Strangler. The source material and the cast are excellent, the subject matter is fascinating and the story is famous but long forgotten. This is indeed a movie that in the hands of a great director like Fincher would make the viewer sit on the edge of their sit. But the writer and director of this movie opts for slow pace, bland murder scenes and makes some odd choices that seem to bring down the tension and the suspense. Something like a reverse Hitchcock.
However, the genre of investigative cinema is always fascinating and whether the movie is called Zodiac, Zero Dark Thirty or Spotlight, there is always something to savor.
In this case, it is the impeccable acting by Ms Knightly who seems to carry the movie with ease and proves yet again that she is a fantastic actress that has lately been overlooked. Her silent yet expressive performance is fantastic. She is a woman of few words but a thousand expressions. Without her, this movie would be way more boring and bland, but she saves the day, Omar-Sharif-in-Dr-Zhivago-style.
However this movie does get a little flat, and maybe a little disappointing in its final act, unlike Zodiac where Fincher made you completely freak out! But not every movie can be a masterpiece.
A must watch for fans of this genre, and generally highly recommended.
Even if this is not your favorite kind of movie, it still is very much worth seeing.
Average Copy of Zodiac
olcare17 March 2023
First of all, I should say that this type of suspense and unsolved crime stories are always enjoyable, but this is not a good film, just an average and not boring one.
The acting is not bad, but the actors didn't shine due to the issues that I will complain about shortly.
Some aspects of the film fall far short of the 2023 standards. I think the most average thing about the movie was its rush. While watching the film, I felt like the person filming had a rush, as events were happening one after another, but it didn't give the viewer enough time to digest them. Therefore, I felt like I didn't care about the family issues emotionally, which was a big flaw. Such a deep subject did not need to be presented in such a rushed manner.
Although the events are interesting, trying to be a copy of Zodiac was also a bad detail. Instead of working on a more different and satisfying screenplay, the movie tackled the same story but at an accelerated pace.
When telling a true story, I think deeper dialogues should be used, but in the film, the dialogues flowed at Formula 1 speed, which was also unpleasant.
It was a very average film, but this does not mean that it is not entertaining. The film ended suddenly, and I can't say that I was ever bored. It felt average due to its straightforward storytelling and lack of depth. It can be watched as a good evening film in free time, but it's not much more than that.
The acting is not bad, but the actors didn't shine due to the issues that I will complain about shortly.
Some aspects of the film fall far short of the 2023 standards. I think the most average thing about the movie was its rush. While watching the film, I felt like the person filming had a rush, as events were happening one after another, but it didn't give the viewer enough time to digest them. Therefore, I felt like I didn't care about the family issues emotionally, which was a big flaw. Such a deep subject did not need to be presented in such a rushed manner.
Although the events are interesting, trying to be a copy of Zodiac was also a bad detail. Instead of working on a more different and satisfying screenplay, the movie tackled the same story but at an accelerated pace.
When telling a true story, I think deeper dialogues should be used, but in the film, the dialogues flowed at Formula 1 speed, which was also unpleasant.
It was a very average film, but this does not mean that it is not entertaining. The film ended suddenly, and I can't say that I was ever bored. It felt average due to its straightforward storytelling and lack of depth. It can be watched as a good evening film in free time, but it's not much more than that.
Pretty enjoyable
UniqueParticle20 July 2023
It is a little slow but very well made and deserving of the Emmy nominee! The cast, mystery, engaging scenes, and intriguing crime drama is great aspects I see how this got mixed vibes yet it's fairly worth it. I'm pretty sure based off a true story at least percentages which is interesting for sure. Keira Knightly and Carrie Coon are phenomenal actresses kinda cool how they both have names that start with the same later they deserve praise I especially love Carrie from The Leftovers! For something written/directed by the same person this is quite well made even though I gave a 7 that's mainly cause of the slowness otherwise highly recommend.
Just Not Gripping
reelreviewsandrecommendations24 July 2023
It is 1962 and Loretta McLaughlin is a journalist at the Boston Record American. After three elderly women are found raped and murdered, McLaughlin starts believing that a serial killer is loose in the area. Alongside fellow reporter Jean Cole, she investigates further, and the discovery of a fourth victim seems to prove their hunch correct. In the face of rampant sexism- and despite her editor telling her to drop it- McLaughlin pursues the story, though whether or not her articles help catch the fiend remains to be seen in Matt Ruskin's 'Boston Strangler.'
Inspired by true events, 'Boston Strangler' is a fairly tepid thriller telling an interesting story in a formulaic fashion. The film moves at a snail's pace, Ruskin's dialogue never sounds anything other than stilted and his characterisation is practically non-existent. While the characters of McLaughlin and Cole should be compelling, Ruskin doesn't give us much insight into their personalities or histories, so we don't really care for them.
Furthermore, McLaughlin's home life is only briefly hinted at, and is then based on stereotypes. Neither she nor anyone else in the film has what one could call a character arc, and beyond their determination to break the strangler story; Ruskin doesn't tell us anything about McLaughlin or Cole. Moreover, the film fails to address the sexism they face in a meaningful way, secondary characters are ill-defined and the historical accuracy of proceedings is questionable.
What's arguably worse though is the film's total lack of suspense or tension. The story unfolds in a linear way with few twists or thrills, never showing us the perspective of the killer or the victims, while also failing to create any doubt or mystery about his identity or motives. We never see the strangler in action, only hear about his crimes from the reporters or the police, creating a distance between the audience and the subject of the film. This means we don't build up any anticipation or fear for the next victim, or any empathy or sympathy for the previous ones.
Alongside his bland characters, this lack of emotional involvement with Ruskin's material means that the film plays more like a dull documentary than a chilling thriller. Had Ruskin concentrated a bit more on characterisation and explored the psychological aspects of the case- such as the motives of the killer or the impact of the murders on the public- 'Boston Strangler' could have been memorable, as it has commendable elements.
John P. Goldsmith's production design, for one, faithfully captures the 60's aesthetic, using vibrant colours, retro styles and historical details to create an impressive facsimile of the time. The film also shows the contrast between the affluent and the poor areas of Boston, and the social unrest that was brewing at the time. Additionally, Ben Kutchins' moody cinematography is very atmospheric, bolstering the film's gritty tone. Paul Leonard-Morgan's score is also worth mentioning, as it brings additional drama to proceedings.
Furthermore, the performances are generally strong, with star Keira Knightley particularly impressing. A versatile talent of depth and charm, Knightley delivers a nuanced performance as McLaughlin, subtly showing her determination, intelligence and vulnerability. Her American accent is faultless and she carries the film squarely on her shoulders. Carrie Coon does similarly compelling work as Cole, though is ultimately underused, as is the great Chris Cooper in the role of McLaughlin's editor.
Despite the solid performances though, Matt Ruskin's 'Boston Strangler' underwhelms and disappoints. The narrative is dreary and insipid, told at a pace that would feel leisurely even to a tortoise. While the cinematography is atmospheric, the score stirring and the production design of a high quality, the film fails to grab one's attention, and is ultimately forgettable. In conclusion, despite its subject matter, Matt Ruskin's 'Boston Strangler' just isn't gripping.
Inspired by true events, 'Boston Strangler' is a fairly tepid thriller telling an interesting story in a formulaic fashion. The film moves at a snail's pace, Ruskin's dialogue never sounds anything other than stilted and his characterisation is practically non-existent. While the characters of McLaughlin and Cole should be compelling, Ruskin doesn't give us much insight into their personalities or histories, so we don't really care for them.
Furthermore, McLaughlin's home life is only briefly hinted at, and is then based on stereotypes. Neither she nor anyone else in the film has what one could call a character arc, and beyond their determination to break the strangler story; Ruskin doesn't tell us anything about McLaughlin or Cole. Moreover, the film fails to address the sexism they face in a meaningful way, secondary characters are ill-defined and the historical accuracy of proceedings is questionable.
What's arguably worse though is the film's total lack of suspense or tension. The story unfolds in a linear way with few twists or thrills, never showing us the perspective of the killer or the victims, while also failing to create any doubt or mystery about his identity or motives. We never see the strangler in action, only hear about his crimes from the reporters or the police, creating a distance between the audience and the subject of the film. This means we don't build up any anticipation or fear for the next victim, or any empathy or sympathy for the previous ones.
Alongside his bland characters, this lack of emotional involvement with Ruskin's material means that the film plays more like a dull documentary than a chilling thriller. Had Ruskin concentrated a bit more on characterisation and explored the psychological aspects of the case- such as the motives of the killer or the impact of the murders on the public- 'Boston Strangler' could have been memorable, as it has commendable elements.
John P. Goldsmith's production design, for one, faithfully captures the 60's aesthetic, using vibrant colours, retro styles and historical details to create an impressive facsimile of the time. The film also shows the contrast between the affluent and the poor areas of Boston, and the social unrest that was brewing at the time. Additionally, Ben Kutchins' moody cinematography is very atmospheric, bolstering the film's gritty tone. Paul Leonard-Morgan's score is also worth mentioning, as it brings additional drama to proceedings.
Furthermore, the performances are generally strong, with star Keira Knightley particularly impressing. A versatile talent of depth and charm, Knightley delivers a nuanced performance as McLaughlin, subtly showing her determination, intelligence and vulnerability. Her American accent is faultless and she carries the film squarely on her shoulders. Carrie Coon does similarly compelling work as Cole, though is ultimately underused, as is the great Chris Cooper in the role of McLaughlin's editor.
Despite the solid performances though, Matt Ruskin's 'Boston Strangler' underwhelms and disappoints. The narrative is dreary and insipid, told at a pace that would feel leisurely even to a tortoise. While the cinematography is atmospheric, the score stirring and the production design of a high quality, the film fails to grab one's attention, and is ultimately forgettable. In conclusion, despite its subject matter, Matt Ruskin's 'Boston Strangler' just isn't gripping.
A smart, thoughtful, and thoroughly engaging examination
I_Ailurophile17 March 2023
Matt Ruskin's direction is firm and mindful, and Ben Kutchins' cinematography is smooth and dynamic. Smart use of light and shadow casts a gloomy atmosphere over the proceedings that should be familiar to anyone who has seen many a modern thriller or horror flick, and Paul Leonard-Morgan's score, mostly keeping to the background, lends to that same ambience - dark, charged, and pensive in turn. From one to the next the ensemble give strong performances, and Keira Knightley in particular amply demonstrates that she's readily capable of commanding the lead role in any film no matter the subject matter or genre.
Above all, Ruskin has penned a screenplay that gives a shrewd perspective on the serial killer of the title from the perspective of the reporter who connected the pieces and broke the story, and her colleagues who joined her in effectively leading the investigation. The dialogue is bold and emphatic, and characters are written with equally pronounced personality. The scene writing is fairly direct and purposeful in building the narrative piece by piece, yet with sufficiently broad scope and variety so that the course of events never grows stale, and passes unexpectedly quickly over these two hours. Arguably more than anything else, however: while never losing sight of the big picture, for much of the length it seems like the underlying themes are the real priority driving both the storytelling and the film-making. This includes some notions that are touched upon to varying degrees, like work-life balance, the role of news media and their relationship to stories, ambition versus determination versus stamina, and the ways our society essentially rewards awful people for their terrible deeds. More prominent are overarching illustrations of the egregious sexism that women and female-coded individuals face (personal, professional, institutional, sociopolitical, cultural), and the appalling failures of law enforcement and the criminal justice system at large. These ideas, above all, are the core of Ruskin's 'Boston Strangler.'
Even with that thematic focus, I'm not sure that this is anything so special or remarkable as to demand viewership, unless perhaps one is an especial fan of someone involved. Nonetheless, I think it's solid, engaging, and much smarter than it initially lets on. Ruskin is careful about how the murders themselves are depicted - by audio, through still photos, and in due course with more active violence. That method provides a sense of growing urgency that aligns with the growing body count, and the ever greater failures of the police - and in some measure provides an anchor point for the storytelling as the more expansive thoughts swirl overhead and the building blocks are laid in for the plot. There then comes a point, fluidly and discreetly, when the plot decidedly takes over. We're locked in and invested for the rest of the tale Ruskin has to tell, with an earnest feeling of tension as the last stretch ticks away. At no point does this feature achieve a singular peak of vibrancy, or come off with any specific brilliance. Yet maybe that's the point, after all, as the movie quietly invokes questions, and wants us to do the same, about the real identity of the Boston Strangler, and the subtle, intricate ties between killers, journalists, law enforcement, violence against women, and society itself. The movie is one that wants us to think critically, and ask questions no one else is. And Ruskin does all this with a soft nuance and intelligence that's easy to miss, or possibly mistake for a lack of eventfulness, if you're not paying attention.
I had mixed expectations when I sat to watch. Even as the digital timer advanced I wasn't necessarily impressed at first, and this seemed common and unexceptional. I'm pleased to say, however, that I rather think that's part and parcel of what Ruskin was actually aiming to do here. From the outset 'Boston Strangler' is marketed, and presents itself, as the type of crime drama that audiences have seen many times over from the film industry. And that's kind of true, even in terms of the deeper notions that it broaches. I think this 2023 picture approaches all these ideas with a supreme attentiveness and care, however, that sets it apart after all as something slightly out of the ordinary - you just have to be receptive, and ready to take in whatever comes your way. I remain at best uncertain if this in any way earns a hard recommendation as a must-see. Yet for the tremendous skill of its craftsmanship, the passion and poise with which it's realized from all who participated, and more than anything the marvelously tactful manner in which it tackles the subject matter, I'm pleasantly surprised by just how good the end result actually is. Don't go out of your way for 'Boston Strangler,' and more than that consider exactly what type of feature it is you want to watch, but if you're looking for a slightly more probing piece of cinema, this is well worth checking out.
Above all, Ruskin has penned a screenplay that gives a shrewd perspective on the serial killer of the title from the perspective of the reporter who connected the pieces and broke the story, and her colleagues who joined her in effectively leading the investigation. The dialogue is bold and emphatic, and characters are written with equally pronounced personality. The scene writing is fairly direct and purposeful in building the narrative piece by piece, yet with sufficiently broad scope and variety so that the course of events never grows stale, and passes unexpectedly quickly over these two hours. Arguably more than anything else, however: while never losing sight of the big picture, for much of the length it seems like the underlying themes are the real priority driving both the storytelling and the film-making. This includes some notions that are touched upon to varying degrees, like work-life balance, the role of news media and their relationship to stories, ambition versus determination versus stamina, and the ways our society essentially rewards awful people for their terrible deeds. More prominent are overarching illustrations of the egregious sexism that women and female-coded individuals face (personal, professional, institutional, sociopolitical, cultural), and the appalling failures of law enforcement and the criminal justice system at large. These ideas, above all, are the core of Ruskin's 'Boston Strangler.'
Even with that thematic focus, I'm not sure that this is anything so special or remarkable as to demand viewership, unless perhaps one is an especial fan of someone involved. Nonetheless, I think it's solid, engaging, and much smarter than it initially lets on. Ruskin is careful about how the murders themselves are depicted - by audio, through still photos, and in due course with more active violence. That method provides a sense of growing urgency that aligns with the growing body count, and the ever greater failures of the police - and in some measure provides an anchor point for the storytelling as the more expansive thoughts swirl overhead and the building blocks are laid in for the plot. There then comes a point, fluidly and discreetly, when the plot decidedly takes over. We're locked in and invested for the rest of the tale Ruskin has to tell, with an earnest feeling of tension as the last stretch ticks away. At no point does this feature achieve a singular peak of vibrancy, or come off with any specific brilliance. Yet maybe that's the point, after all, as the movie quietly invokes questions, and wants us to do the same, about the real identity of the Boston Strangler, and the subtle, intricate ties between killers, journalists, law enforcement, violence against women, and society itself. The movie is one that wants us to think critically, and ask questions no one else is. And Ruskin does all this with a soft nuance and intelligence that's easy to miss, or possibly mistake for a lack of eventfulness, if you're not paying attention.
I had mixed expectations when I sat to watch. Even as the digital timer advanced I wasn't necessarily impressed at first, and this seemed common and unexceptional. I'm pleased to say, however, that I rather think that's part and parcel of what Ruskin was actually aiming to do here. From the outset 'Boston Strangler' is marketed, and presents itself, as the type of crime drama that audiences have seen many times over from the film industry. And that's kind of true, even in terms of the deeper notions that it broaches. I think this 2023 picture approaches all these ideas with a supreme attentiveness and care, however, that sets it apart after all as something slightly out of the ordinary - you just have to be receptive, and ready to take in whatever comes your way. I remain at best uncertain if this in any way earns a hard recommendation as a must-see. Yet for the tremendous skill of its craftsmanship, the passion and poise with which it's realized from all who participated, and more than anything the marvelously tactful manner in which it tackles the subject matter, I'm pleasantly surprised by just how good the end result actually is. Don't go out of your way for 'Boston Strangler,' and more than that consider exactly what type of feature it is you want to watch, but if you're looking for a slightly more probing piece of cinema, this is well worth checking out.
If you're after thrills and chills, you should look elsewhere
fredrikgunerius29 January 2024
Keira Knightley is an aspiring investigative reporter with a local Boston newspaper in the 1960s, Chris Cooper is her old-fashioned editor reluctantly willing to give her a chance to crack the Boston Strangler case, and Carrie Coon is the more experienced and hard-nosed journalist who becomes her partner on the case. This true crime thriller may tread familiar ground and lack an edge, but the first half of the film offers an appealing time travel to 1960s Boston and works as an enticing infrastructure for the story. Keira Knightley is well-cast and gives a highly effective performance as the driven but not necessarily tough-skinned protagonist. She's a feminist for all the right reasons. And as written and directed by Matt Ruskin, the film has a tidy efficiency about it. However, if you're after thrills and chills, you should look elsewhere. Boston Strangler is by no means an exploitation movie; the killings are depicted so tactfully that they seem almost inconsequential. Ruskin is more interested in the procedural and political side of this story, which makes the film a little too businesslike and fastidious towards the end, when Ruskin becomes desperate to find conclusions to an inconclusive story.
Going through the motions. Lacking in true spark and thrill. Copycat.
imseeg23 March 2023
I love Keira Knightley as an actress in many other movies, but somehow she didnt shine in this role as a female journalist unravelling a serial murder mystery.
The bad: this movie is simply going through the motions. No surprises. No spark or punch. No real thrill. No originality. Everything about this serial killer movie has been done better by others before...
More bad: it has got an annoyingly heavy soundtrack, that must constantly remember me as a viewer, that now THIS scene and now THAT scene is suppose to be ominous and spooky. When it's no such thing. Bummer!
Not any good then? Honestly, I have been critisizing this movie but it's certainly not a terrible movie, merely a rather BLAND and BORING one.
Similar to many other reviewers on Imdb, I also had many flashbacks of the brilliant movie called "The Zodiac" (2007) with Robert Downey Jr. And Jake Gylenhaal. Go watch THAT movie instead of this failed COPYCAT flick! "The Zodiac" (2007) is HIGHLY recommended by me and by many other true fans of this genre!
The bad: this movie is simply going through the motions. No surprises. No spark or punch. No real thrill. No originality. Everything about this serial killer movie has been done better by others before...
More bad: it has got an annoyingly heavy soundtrack, that must constantly remember me as a viewer, that now THIS scene and now THAT scene is suppose to be ominous and spooky. When it's no such thing. Bummer!
Not any good then? Honestly, I have been critisizing this movie but it's certainly not a terrible movie, merely a rather BLAND and BORING one.
Similar to many other reviewers on Imdb, I also had many flashbacks of the brilliant movie called "The Zodiac" (2007) with Robert Downey Jr. And Jake Gylenhaal. Go watch THAT movie instead of this failed COPYCAT flick! "The Zodiac" (2007) is HIGHLY recommended by me and by many other true fans of this genre!
Boston Strangler
henry8-319 March 2023
Stuck on dull, feminine reporting jobs on the Boston Record American, journalist Keira Knightley persuaded her boss played by Chris Cooper to let her investigate a series of seemingly connected strangulations of women across Boston. He agrees as long as seasoned vet, played by Carrie Coon joins in. Whilst the story focusses initially on the infamous Boston Strangler murders, it shifts significantly as it becomes clear that society is scared and needs someone to take the fall.
Whilst DNA evidence has now proved Albert DeSalvo's guilt on at least one of the thirteen famous murders, it has never been proven he was wholly responsible and this film looks at the widespread corruption behind the need for DeSalvo to be guilty. It is a detailed procedural and character driven film with Knightley giving another effortless impressive turn, well supported by Coon and Cooper. It is not though your average killer on the loose thriller, nor is it looking to be another 'Zodiac', although clearly the investigation had a considerable affect upon Knightley's character, who can't leave it be.
Nuanced and multi layered, it is a compelling, well acted, intelligent piece, albeit it sometimes rather lacks tension.
Whilst DNA evidence has now proved Albert DeSalvo's guilt on at least one of the thirteen famous murders, it has never been proven he was wholly responsible and this film looks at the widespread corruption behind the need for DeSalvo to be guilty. It is a detailed procedural and character driven film with Knightley giving another effortless impressive turn, well supported by Coon and Cooper. It is not though your average killer on the loose thriller, nor is it looking to be another 'Zodiac', although clearly the investigation had a considerable affect upon Knightley's character, who can't leave it be.
Nuanced and multi layered, it is a compelling, well acted, intelligent piece, albeit it sometimes rather lacks tension.
This movie had a lot going for it but falls short of its potential.
kevin_robbins8 June 2023
Boston Strangler (2023) is currently available on Hulu and tells the story of a news reporter who believes the police investigation to track down the Boston Strangler is going poorly and takes matters into her own hands. She will put her life at risk from both the killer and those who want to keep the killer's identity a mystery....
This movie is directed by Matt Ruskin (Crown Heights) and stars Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean), Carrie Coon (Gone Girl), Chris Cooper (American Beauty), Alessandro Nivola (American Hustle) and Rory Cochrane (Black Mass).
This movie had a lot going for it but falls short of its potential. The premise and storyline are good, especially the ending and recap. The depiction of the era is perfect. The settings, attire and props were all well done. There's also good use of background music to create intensity. Unfortunately, there's really no kills scenes. There's no kills or delivery of what actually happened. This needed to push itself a bit farther in terms of the historical events.
Overall, this ends up being more of a murder mystery than horror/thriller. I would score this a 6/10 and recommend skipping it.
This movie is directed by Matt Ruskin (Crown Heights) and stars Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean), Carrie Coon (Gone Girl), Chris Cooper (American Beauty), Alessandro Nivola (American Hustle) and Rory Cochrane (Black Mass).
This movie had a lot going for it but falls short of its potential. The premise and storyline are good, especially the ending and recap. The depiction of the era is perfect. The settings, attire and props were all well done. There's also good use of background music to create intensity. Unfortunately, there's really no kills scenes. There's no kills or delivery of what actually happened. This needed to push itself a bit farther in terms of the historical events.
Overall, this ends up being more of a murder mystery than horror/thriller. I would score this a 6/10 and recommend skipping it.
And I'm going there soon!
lee_eisenberg5 April 2023
It was a bit odd to watch "Boston Strangler" now, since I'm planning a trip to Boston soon. But anyway, it's worth seeing. The movie focuses less on the murders than on a pair of women (Keira Knightley and Carrie Coon) who set out to solve the case. Being women, they of course did not have an easy time doing this in a male-dominated field.
As with many movies focusing on investigations, there's some focus on the protagonists' home life and how their work affected that. All in all it's not a great movie, more of a by-the-book focus on an event. Even so, it gives one a feeling of how the murders held Boston in terror for a few years. Worth seeing.
As with many movies focusing on investigations, there's some focus on the protagonists' home life and how their work affected that. All in all it's not a great movie, more of a by-the-book focus on an event. Even so, it gives one a feeling of how the murders held Boston in terror for a few years. Worth seeing.
For Dear Loretta
avindugunasinghe2 September 2023
A killer has it's reasons but the opportunists who make a buck over a crisis are equally vile and it seemed to be the takeaway of this story. While the society is sheepish and ignorant the killers lurk and this hunting grounds of stranglers is made to picture carefully gloomy cold colour tones adds the misery of death to visuals. Excellent performances by the cast in depicting the maze that's traversed to get to the truth. Great use of audio keeping up with the tension of the chain of events. Great writing that gives characters unique traits through dialogues. A movie that's well made in all aspects.
The Boston Stranglerfrom a different view
scotishlass6 September 2023
This film is a new angle on an old series of crimes, by setting it from the point of view, POV, of the reporters that covered the crimes attributed to the Boston Strangler. I found it interesting, an intelligent giving the viewer some things to think about even after the credits roll. I for one enjoy intelligent films, but I know that many prefer the instant gratification of having everything tied up in a neat little bow. Yet, it is well acted, well written and in my opinion a compelling look at the crimes society has been told were committed by Albert DeSalvo. I cannot be anymore specific without ruining this film for future viewers, except to say it is worth watching.
Very reminiscent of Zodiac, much better than the 1968 Tony Curtis movie.
barcham_9919 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
While I enjoyed this movie immensely, I found it very much to be a female-driven adaptation of Zodiac, except for the fact we have an admitted killer by the end. Like Zodiac, we have a journalist from a different department who decides to work a series of murders, the journalists are better at investigating the cases than law enforcement, we have the required mysterious phone calls and hang-ups, and even a segment where the journalist becomes afraid to enter a suspect's abode and basically runs away. The movie also focuses on the journalists' hunt for the killer, instead of the murders themselves. Which is very appropriate seeing as to this day we are still unsure whether DeSalvo committed all the murders or only some of them.
Now, don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy the movie. I only felt that I had seen it before, as Zodiac. If I had never watched Zodiac, I would have given this movie a solid 8.
Anyone picking on Kiera Knightly's accent really missed the entire point and I had no problems with her accent and found she put in an excellent portrayal, as did everyone in the film.
If someone is looking for a slasher film, better look elsewhere. You will not satisfy those urges here. If you want to see a movie that deals with the subject matter in a much more accurate way than the 1968 Tony Curtis vehicle, this is the one you need to see. I would have gladly watched another hour or so of this movie, say bring it to the same length as the Zodiac movie, to have the other similar murders and subjects explored more in depth, as well as a more in depth look at Albert DeSalvo himself.
This movie barely scratches the surface of the Boston Strangler murders, and of the man we have always considered to be the Strangler. Where the 1968 movie brought us mostly a fictional version of DeSalvo, this movie gives us almost nothing about the man at all. But it has given me the incentive to do more Internet research into this case, to discover the details that were left out.
I am glad I watched it, and did not find it to be a waste of my time as so many other movies today tend to be. But it could have been so much more that I was left unsatisfied at the end, like being served an excellent meal but only being able to have a couple of bites before it was taken away.
If you are interested in the case, this will be worth watching. I feel most people will discover information about the Boston Strangler that they did not know before. Go in with an open mind, and you will have it filled with information that will give you much cause for thought. In the end, the Boston Strangler turns out to be as much of a mystery as the Zodiac killer and Jack the Ripper long before both of them.
Now, don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy the movie. I only felt that I had seen it before, as Zodiac. If I had never watched Zodiac, I would have given this movie a solid 8.
Anyone picking on Kiera Knightly's accent really missed the entire point and I had no problems with her accent and found she put in an excellent portrayal, as did everyone in the film.
If someone is looking for a slasher film, better look elsewhere. You will not satisfy those urges here. If you want to see a movie that deals with the subject matter in a much more accurate way than the 1968 Tony Curtis vehicle, this is the one you need to see. I would have gladly watched another hour or so of this movie, say bring it to the same length as the Zodiac movie, to have the other similar murders and subjects explored more in depth, as well as a more in depth look at Albert DeSalvo himself.
This movie barely scratches the surface of the Boston Strangler murders, and of the man we have always considered to be the Strangler. Where the 1968 movie brought us mostly a fictional version of DeSalvo, this movie gives us almost nothing about the man at all. But it has given me the incentive to do more Internet research into this case, to discover the details that were left out.
I am glad I watched it, and did not find it to be a waste of my time as so many other movies today tend to be. But it could have been so much more that I was left unsatisfied at the end, like being served an excellent meal but only being able to have a couple of bites before it was taken away.
If you are interested in the case, this will be worth watching. I feel most people will discover information about the Boston Strangler that they did not know before. Go in with an open mind, and you will have it filled with information that will give you much cause for thought. In the end, the Boston Strangler turns out to be as much of a mystery as the Zodiac killer and Jack the Ripper long before both of them.
A decent production brought down by conspiracy mongering
There_Is_No_Sayid19 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
From a production standpoint this is a decent film. The film does underuse the amazing Carrie Coon, but Keira Knightly gives a good performance and the direction is moody and atmospheric. The violence which we do get to see is disturbing without being sensationalized, romanticized, or sexualized.
But the film is brought down by the script. Another review I saw said that the movie wants to be Zodiac, the David Fincher masterpiece which is also about the search for a serial killer. That assessment is plainly true after watching the film. Much of it is clearly inspired by Zodiac, from the Fincher-esque muted palette, to the false leads about possible suspects. There's even a scene where Knightley goes to question a possible suspect and has to excuse herself when things get creepy. It's virtually identical to a scene in Zodiac with Jake Gyllenhaal doing the same thing.
The problem is that the Boston Strangler case is not the same as the Zodiac. The Zodiac killings were never solved. We don't know who did it. So the speculative nature of Fincher's film makes sense. That film even refuses to definitively accuse the person it posits as the most likely suspect. In contrast, we know who did the Boston Strangler killings: Albert De Salvo. He confessed to the killings at the time and was linked definitively to them through DNA evidence in 2013. Unlike the 1960s film starring Tony Curtis and Jimmy Stewart, this movie doesn't show us DeSalvo or mention his name until more than halfway through it's run time, a nice choice in my opinion, although one which also echoes Zodiac's treatment of Arthur Lee Allen. But the problem becomes that once DeSalvo is captured and confesses, the film spends a substantial amount of time, around quarter of its run time, pushing the idea that DeSalvo wasn't the killer and that someone else was, perhaps DeSalvo's cell mate, or a man who was arrested for similar crimes in Michigan. The idea that DeSalvo might have been innocent of the Strangler killings (he definitely committed other crimes including the serial rapes he was convicted for) was a popular one for many decades because the main evidence against him was his confession, which some people felt may have been coached or coerced. But that uncertainty went out the window with the DNA evidence linking him to the crime and it's irresponsible for them to push this other notion.
Furthermore, the film misses the thematic underpinnings of Zodiac. That film was about the uncertainty of knowledge and the toll which obsession with the case takes on those involved. This film eschews most of that in favor of a more traditional tale of journalistic striving for the truth. It hits some of the obligatory tropes of that genre, such as a few scenes where we see the strain on Knightley's marriage from working too hard, but in contrast to Zodiac, it portrays her obsessive quest for a solution as healthy and heroic. That makes the indeterminacy and conspiracy mongering of the film more problematic.
But the film is brought down by the script. Another review I saw said that the movie wants to be Zodiac, the David Fincher masterpiece which is also about the search for a serial killer. That assessment is plainly true after watching the film. Much of it is clearly inspired by Zodiac, from the Fincher-esque muted palette, to the false leads about possible suspects. There's even a scene where Knightley goes to question a possible suspect and has to excuse herself when things get creepy. It's virtually identical to a scene in Zodiac with Jake Gyllenhaal doing the same thing.
The problem is that the Boston Strangler case is not the same as the Zodiac. The Zodiac killings were never solved. We don't know who did it. So the speculative nature of Fincher's film makes sense. That film even refuses to definitively accuse the person it posits as the most likely suspect. In contrast, we know who did the Boston Strangler killings: Albert De Salvo. He confessed to the killings at the time and was linked definitively to them through DNA evidence in 2013. Unlike the 1960s film starring Tony Curtis and Jimmy Stewart, this movie doesn't show us DeSalvo or mention his name until more than halfway through it's run time, a nice choice in my opinion, although one which also echoes Zodiac's treatment of Arthur Lee Allen. But the problem becomes that once DeSalvo is captured and confesses, the film spends a substantial amount of time, around quarter of its run time, pushing the idea that DeSalvo wasn't the killer and that someone else was, perhaps DeSalvo's cell mate, or a man who was arrested for similar crimes in Michigan. The idea that DeSalvo might have been innocent of the Strangler killings (he definitely committed other crimes including the serial rapes he was convicted for) was a popular one for many decades because the main evidence against him was his confession, which some people felt may have been coached or coerced. But that uncertainty went out the window with the DNA evidence linking him to the crime and it's irresponsible for them to push this other notion.
Furthermore, the film misses the thematic underpinnings of Zodiac. That film was about the uncertainty of knowledge and the toll which obsession with the case takes on those involved. This film eschews most of that in favor of a more traditional tale of journalistic striving for the truth. It hits some of the obligatory tropes of that genre, such as a few scenes where we see the strain on Knightley's marriage from working too hard, but in contrast to Zodiac, it portrays her obsessive quest for a solution as healthy and heroic. That makes the indeterminacy and conspiracy mongering of the film more problematic.
The depth of character is flawless
evivaholst18 March 2023
There's a lot of people bagging this movie, I don't care if her accent isn't perfect - Keira gives one of her best performances. The cinematography is some of the best seen and whilst you may say it's a story we know, this goes well beyond that.
As the viewer we experience the life of those times, the various people, and we witness how a life of freedom became locked doors and fear.
The depth these actors went to is incredible- they own their character and at no time did they slip. Every single actor was flawless.
If you like these types of movies then I highly recommend watching, there were several times I cried and also felt scared.
As the viewer we experience the life of those times, the various people, and we witness how a life of freedom became locked doors and fear.
The depth these actors went to is incredible- they own their character and at no time did they slip. Every single actor was flawless.
If you like these types of movies then I highly recommend watching, there were several times I cried and also felt scared.
Might have been better as an episodic series
buonoart26 March 2023
Having been a toddler when DeSalvo--well it was DeSalvo--was inhabiting his Measuring Man, Green Man and finally Strangler personas, and living just a half mile from him (and also being intimately acquainted with the location (in Belmont) used for Loretta's neighborhood and the Cambridge police station), I was really looking forward to this film, since the full subject really hasn't been treated dramatically, notwithstanding the 1968 Strangler movie featuring Tony Curtis. Alas, this noirish crime/reporter drama falls short of its subject, including even the story-within-story of the two "girl" reporters who largely drove the investigation at its early stages. The case has so many threads, all seeming touched on in the film, but none satisfactorily developed. It might have been done more fully in a season of one-hour episodes, perhaps loosely corresponding to each murder and subsequent developments. At least, Loretta McLaughlin and Jean Cole get more deserved recognition, albeit posthumously, for their intrepid and implacable reporting.
There's a couple of confected scenes or plot twists (the movie is only "inspired by" true events), but these aren't obviously improbable (well maybe one is) to someone unfamiliar with the case. I agree that the film suffers a bit from the conspiracists' take on whether DeSalvo really committed all (or any) of the murders, which absorbs the last quarter of the film. Finally, the cinematography is a bit overboard on the dark and dreary: even the newsroom is dark; one wonders how the staff could see to write.
There's a couple of confected scenes or plot twists (the movie is only "inspired by" true events), but these aren't obviously improbable (well maybe one is) to someone unfamiliar with the case. I agree that the film suffers a bit from the conspiracists' take on whether DeSalvo really committed all (or any) of the murders, which absorbs the last quarter of the film. Finally, the cinematography is a bit overboard on the dark and dreary: even the newsroom is dark; one wonders how the staff could see to write.
They could've handled the final act better! [+54%]
arungeorge1319 March 2023
Boston Strangler, based on real killings in the early '60s, comes off as a film that's trying hard to remain rivetingly mysterious as opposed to a Zodiac or a Se7en. It has a first act that instantly hooks your investigative interests, and as the cases begin to pile up, there are many leads the film puts forward. Cinematographer Ben Kutchins attributes as a dark, softened glow to the frames, not too distant from the visual style of a David Fincher thriller. But the plot developments in the subsequent acts don't mesh well. You're given many names and faces, and you're expected to look at each one with a specific level of suspicion. Towards the end, I lost interest, just like one of those cops (played by Alessandro Nivola) who worked on one of the cases. It doesn't take much on Keira Knightley's part to slip into the role of Loretta, and I also liked how Matt Ruskin's writing discussed the casual sexism of that era. But that's all there is!
Poor Me and Other Fables
drednm18 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The Boston Strangler is a newbie from Hulu that focuses on two female reporters who create the myth of The Boston Strangler and then help frame Albert DeSalvo as the killer.
The first noticeable thing in the film is that it's yet again a mud-colored desaturated opus (really tired of these) and the acting is almost as colorless. Keira Knightley plays the "poor me" put-upon female reporter who breaks into the big time with the help of an older female reporter (Carrie Coon). They must fight against the male management, the male cops, the male lawyers. You get the picture. Chris Cooper plays the newspaper editor.
Taking place in the early 60s, most of the cars seen are about ten years too old and clean as a whistle. Otherwise the film is devoid of anything that sets the time or place. Ultimately, after DeSalvo is killed in prison, the film admits that he was unlikely the "strangler" and that of the 13 murders only the last copycat killing bore any DNA evidence that DeSalvo was involved. We also learn that the pattern of the killings was, even then, assumed to be by more than one killer. There was no "Boston Strangler."
Yet the women rode the fame float, whining every step of the way.
The truth is that the other 12 victims of The Boston Strangler are unsolved as we speak. The film is ok but no great shakes.
The first noticeable thing in the film is that it's yet again a mud-colored desaturated opus (really tired of these) and the acting is almost as colorless. Keira Knightley plays the "poor me" put-upon female reporter who breaks into the big time with the help of an older female reporter (Carrie Coon). They must fight against the male management, the male cops, the male lawyers. You get the picture. Chris Cooper plays the newspaper editor.
Taking place in the early 60s, most of the cars seen are about ten years too old and clean as a whistle. Otherwise the film is devoid of anything that sets the time or place. Ultimately, after DeSalvo is killed in prison, the film admits that he was unlikely the "strangler" and that of the 13 murders only the last copycat killing bore any DNA evidence that DeSalvo was involved. We also learn that the pattern of the killings was, even then, assumed to be by more than one killer. There was no "Boston Strangler."
Yet the women rode the fame float, whining every step of the way.
The truth is that the other 12 victims of The Boston Strangler are unsolved as we speak. The film is ok but no great shakes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
