Lo strangolatore di Boston

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.

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!

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.

This isn't so much a story about the notorious murderer, but more one of two investigative journalists who meticulously followed the case and tried to establish the truth behind these gruesome crimes. Loretta McLaughlin (Keira Knightley) was largely responsible for taking the initiative to her editor (Chris Cooper) but that published, convincing, analysis drew considerable disdain from the police and she was swiftly booted off the story. Undeterred, she persisted and ultimately with the more experienced Jean Cole (Carrie Coon) is reinstated and allowed to develop her theory that - well, maybe there isn't just one strangler! To be fair, I am not particularly well versed in the history of this, but I did find this a very dry and procedural drama that reminded me a little of "Official Secrets" (2019). Again, this saw Knightley in a smilier sort of role, and again delivering it very much as if it were straight off the page. There is little evidence of passion here. The tenacity and perseverance of these two women - at times putting the safety of themselves and their families on the line - isn't really captured here. It's wordy, at times a little too earnest and though it looks good it's just all a bit sterile. This is a fascinating story that looks at serial killings, copycat killings and strong investigative journalism all in the face of a rather linear (and sexist) approach taken by the authorities. It ought to be scintillating and intriguing - but this is certainly not.

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!