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.

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!

Critical reviewer , this was a flat and superficial told story...well , then this reviewer have had a blind eye towards when this true happenings evolved, and to avoid such an extremely large crimecase story into a flick that doesnt drag with an extremely long playlength, deepdives have been dropped correctly... the way the cutters and direstors have decided to make this prewoman liberation, historical journalismic sensations from back then is just brilliant for the silverscreen theater.

Because this is a dramatized biopic of 2 female journalists working in and towards ultraheavily male proffesions reporting crime in the ultracatholic boston area in the late 50's and 60's america,it should be granted for what it is, miss kiera does along with carrie coon and chris cooper do some of their best performances for ages.

So thanks metoo for making films like this see the light of day, even though its a sad testament of an era when most crimes went towards the cold, only to be solved 40-50 years later using crucial new techniques as dna etc, also made possible by a big wave of intelligent female researchers and detectives on the crime arena.

Its a dark, cold and inconsolable story of bestiallic murder way back then, amazingly well set, using gadgets and props correct from the era of time, well cut and ensambled, and made even more viewable due to less musical score than they usually use.

The major impression for the grumpy old man was the thrill, a 9 star outta 10 , a recommend.