Boston Strangler

Boston Strangler has potential compelling angles, such as the personalization of "lady reporters" and political expedience. However, Ruskin's investigative tick-tock lacks originality and feels like it belongs on cable or Hulu. Additionally, the film clumsily adds messages about workplace misogyny and sexual violence, which oversimplifies the complex themes. A well-told story of the case itself would have naturally touched on these themes.

While the film sheds light on the importance of journalism and the power of women in the newsroom, it struggles to deliver the level of suspense and excitement expected in a crime thriller. The strong performances from the lead actors and the sensitive approach to the real-life events are noteworthy, but the movie ultimately falls flat when it comes to delivering a gripping narrative.

Keeping up the "free press" illusion - entertaining to a certain degree.

It's a David Fincher wannabe film.

"Boston Strangler" is a film that aims high but falls short. Its focus on the journalistic investigation of the Boston Strangler case is commendable, and its depiction of 1960s sexism is effectively sobering. However, its convoluted plot and lack of emotional depth prevent it from fully capitalizing on its intriguing premise. As a historical crime drama, it offers an interesting, albeit flawed, exploration of a notorious chapter in American crime history.

Just like a Fincher procedural, but lame.

If Keira is in it I'll probably watch it. This was fine, nothing amazing but fine & told the story well enough. Just a bit too long and a touch too dry, but sometimes true crime is like that unless you go out of the way to spice it up. I appreciate that this one actually didn't do that.

Competent procedural about a frustrating decades long investigation with unclear results. I know that you probably shouldn't change the facts when making a film about real life murders, but between this, Zodiac, and various true crime podcasts/shows, I'm getting a good idea why police procedurals are such an enduring and popular format.

The scariest thing about this movie is learning that in the sixties, fifty-something year old women were considered elderly.

This plays best as a film about the real details of this case, even though it ends up not really resolving it in a satisfying manner (not that it can really help that).

Much more based in fact than its 1968 counterpart, Boston Strangler is a bit paint by numbers at times but is a pretty good telling of the story. It's less technically interesting than the '68 version, but has more interesting human aspects happening, like Knightley as a female reporter who wants more serious stories even though those are usually written by the men at her paper. Not bad at all, but nothing special.

Too much reporting and not enough strangling...? Still a solid drama with Keira Knightley being stubborn covering the story of the Boston Strangler (2023) for the newspaper. Just wish they'd done more to follow the actual killer(s?).

Of course I didn't expect it to be as good as a Zodiac, but I didn't expect it to be this disappointing too. If you want to make a serial killer movie out of journalism, you must first learn not to write in such a messy way. Boston Strangler is more like a list of complicated Wikipedia information than a film. Fortunately, the cast did a great job. At least the moody atmosphere was good too.