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.