Boston Strangler

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.

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!

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.

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!

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..