If you’re anything like me, you probably grew up hearing the name "The Boston Strangler" as a sort of campfire ghost story. It’s one of those cases that feels ancient, almost like Jack the Ripper, but it actually happened in the 1960s. When Disney and Hulu dropped the Boston Strangler movie back in 2023, a lot of people expected a gory slasher or a high-octane police chase. What we actually got was something way more interesting: a quiet, atmospheric drama about the two women who literally risked their careers to name the killer.
It's a weird vibe. Honestly, the movie feels less like Se7en and a lot more like All the President's Men. It doesn’t focus on the blood. Instead, it focuses on the ink.
The True Story Behind Keira Knightley’s Loretta McLaughlin
Keira Knightley plays Loretta McLaughlin, a real-life reporter for the Record American. Back then, newspapers were basically a boy's club. Women were stuck writing about vacuum cleaners and toaster recipes on the "lifestyle" desks. Loretta wasn't having it. She noticed a pattern in three murders that the actual police somehow missed. Or maybe they didn't miss it; maybe they just didn't care enough to connect the dots between elderly women being strangled in their own homes.
Loretta teamed up with Jean Cole, played by Carrie Coon. Jean was the seasoned pro, the one who knew how to navigate the smoky backrooms and the ego-driven world of 1960s journalism. Together, they gave the killer his name. Think about that for a second. The term "Boston Strangler" didn't come from a detective's file. It came from a headline these two women fought to publish.
The film does a great job of showing the grit. It’s not glamorous. There’s a lot of gray. Gray suits, gray offices, gray Boston skies. It captures that suffocating feeling of being right when everyone else is telling you to shut up and go back to the "women's pages."
Why the 1968 Version and the 2023 Version are Worlds Apart
If you’re a film nerd, you might remember the 1968 movie starring Tony Curtis. That one was a bit of a trip. It used split-screens and focused heavily on the psychology of Albert DeSalvo. It was very "of its time."
👉 See also: Is Heroes and Villains Legit? What You Need to Know Before Buying
The new Boston Strangler movie, directed by Matt Ruskin, flips the script entirely. It’s not about the killer’s childhood or his twisted mind. It’s about the systemic failure of the Boston Police Department. It’s about how a city can be paralyzed by fear while the institutions meant to protect it are too busy arguing over jurisdiction to actually catch a murderer.
Ruskin actually grew up in Boston. You can tell. He didn't want to make another movie that glorified a serial killer. He wanted to talk about his city’s history. He even interviewed the families of the real reporters to get the details right. That’s why the movie feels so lived-in.
Was Albert DeSalvo Actually the Only Killer?
This is where the movie gets controversial, and honestly, where the real-life case gets messy. For years, the official story was simple: Albert DeSalvo confessed, he went to prison, case closed. But if you look at the evidence, things start to crumble.
The Boston Strangler movie doesn’t shy away from the theory that there might have been multiple killers.
- The DNA Evidence: In 2013, DNA linked DeSalvo to the final victim, Mary Sullivan. That’s a fact.
- The Inconsistencies: DeSalvo’s confessions were packed with errors. He got details about the crime scenes wrong—details only the killer should have known.
- The Modus Operandi: The victims ranged from 19 to 85 years old. Some were raped, some weren't. Some were strangled with nylon stockings, others with scarves. Serial killers usually have a "signature," and this one was all over the place.
Loretta McLaughlin herself was skeptical. The movie portrays this brilliantly. It suggests that DeSalvo might have been a "serial confessor," someone coached by other inmates to take the fall for multiple murders in exchange for fame or better prison conditions. It's a dark thought. If DeSalvo wasn't the only one, it means other killers just walked away because the police were too eager to put a bow on the case.
✨ Don't miss: Jack Blocker American Idol Journey: What Most People Get Wrong
The Visual Language of 1960s Boston
I have to talk about the cinematography for a minute because it’s stunning in a depressing way. Ben Kutchins, the director of photography, used these muted, desaturated colors. It makes the whole movie feel like an old, stained newspaper.
You’ve got these long shots of Keira Knightley walking through the newsroom, and you can almost smell the cigarette smoke and the lead type. It’s a slow-burn film. If you’re looking for Fast & Furious, look elsewhere. But if you like movies that make you feel like you’re actually breathing the air of a different era, this is it.
The sound design is also super subtle. The clicking of typewriters sounds like gunfire sometimes. It emphasizes that the pen—or the typewriter—really was the only weapon these women had against a killer and a society that didn't want to hear from them.
Realism vs. Hollywood Flair
Obviously, every "true story" movie takes liberties. In the Boston Strangler movie, some timelines are compressed. Some characters are composites. But the core of it—the struggle of the reporters—is incredibly accurate.
Loretta McLaughlin eventually became the first female editorial page editor at the Boston Globe. She was a titan of journalism. Seeing her start as a nervous but determined reporter in this movie is a great tribute to her legacy. Jean Cole’s daughters have even spoken out about how much they appreciated seeing their mother’s hard-nosed reporting style reflected on screen.
🔗 Read more: Why American Beauty by the Grateful Dead is Still the Gold Standard of Americana
How to Fact-Check the Movie Yourself
If you finish the movie and find yourself spiraling down a Wikipedia rabbit hole (we've all been there), here’s what you should actually look up to get the full picture:
- The Case of Mary Sullivan: Look into the 2013 exhumation of DeSalvo’s body. It’s the most definitive piece of forensic evidence we have.
- The Record American Archives: You can actually find old scans of the articles written by McLaughlin and Cole. Seeing the original layout helps you understand the impact they had.
- The 1964 Life Magazine Article: There was a massive spread in Life that basically turned the investigation into a media circus. It’s a great example of how the press can both help and hinder a case.
- Casey Sherman’s Research: The author of "A Rose for Mary" (who is also a producer on the film) has spent decades arguing that DeSalvo didn't act alone. His work is the basis for much of the film's skepticism.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Ending
Without spoiling the specific beats, the ending of the 2023 movie isn't "happy." It doesn't give you that dopamine hit of a detective clicking handcuffs onto a villain while the music swells. Instead, it leaves you with a lingering sense of unease.
It forces you to realize that justice isn't always a straight line. Sometimes, "solving" a case is just a way for a city to stop feeling guilty. The movie argues that the truth is often sacrificed for the sake of order.
Actionable Steps for True Crime Fans
If this movie sparked a deeper interest in the era or the ethics of journalism, don't just stop at the credits. True crime is better when you engage with it critically.
- Watch the 1968 version: Compare how the two films treat the victims. You’ll notice the 2023 version gives them much more dignity.
- Read "The Girls Next Door": This is a great book by Heather Quinlan that dives into the lives of the women in Boston during the stranglings. It provides the social context the movie only has time to hint at.
- Support Local Journalism: The movie is a love letter to the power of the press. In an era where local newsrooms are shrinking, it’s a reminder that we need people on the ground asking uncomfortable questions.
- Visit the Sites (Virtually): Use Google Earth to look at the Beacon Hill and Back Bay areas of Boston. Many of the buildings from the 1960s are still there, and seeing the tight-knit layout of the city makes the fear of that time much more visceral.
The Boston Strangler movie is a rare beast. It’s a big-budget production that feels like an indie film. It’s a crime story that cares more about the truth than the gore. Whether you’re a history buff or just looking for a solid drama, it’s worth the two-hour runtime. Just don't expect to feel particularly safe walking home alone afterward.
To get the most out of your viewing, pay attention to the background noise in the newsroom scenes—the frantic energy of the 1960s press is the real heartbeat of this story. Once you've watched it, look up the original Record American headlines to see just how closely the film mirrored the actual typography and layout of the era. This level of detail is what separates a standard biopic from a genuinely immersive historical drama.