I’ve always wondered, what makes crime thriller concepts so intriguing to some people? I know some just like to hear stories about serial killers (real or not), as it gives them a strange form of comfort. While I, as an anxiety filled worrywort can’t relate to the “comfort” aspect of serial killer fascination, I am finally starting to understand a different aspect to their appeal. To put it in a very simplistic way, anything that gives us a “puzzle” to unravel can give us a great feeling of satisfaction. Logically the higher stakes of puzzle (like people are being actively murdered), the more gratification we get when the leads (or real life investigators) are able to solve it. So while the grittiness of the crimes being committed or the action sequences may be all well and good, I’m honestly really in this for the big-brained “aha” moments of these stories. Incidentally, what helped me realize this was To Catch a Killer.

In this film, Shailene Woodley plays an exceptionaly perceptive cop, Eleanor Falco, who is recruited by FBI agent Geoffrey Lammark (Ben Mendelsohn) to investigate a serial killer who terrorized Baltimore on New Years Eve. In the past, Eleanor was turned down for a position with the FBI due to her mental instability and addiction, which is exactly why Geoffrey thinks she is the perfect candidate for this assignment. It was directed by the Academy Award nominated Argentine filmmaker Damián Szifron (in his English language debut) and written by the director and Jonathan Wakeham (his feature-length debut).

To be honest it’s not what To Catch a Killer has a lot of, but rather what it’s lacking that made me appreciate what it did well. Does it have a serial killer with a sense of creativity or dramatic flair? No. Is it full of cool action sequences? Not really. Are Officer Falco and Agent Lammark a particularly original duo of lead investigator characters? Ehh…most would say no, but I think their dynamic together worked well and were written with more nuance than I’m used to seeing from this genre.

I think nuance is the key word of what really saved what could have been a bit dull of a film for me. Much of writing leaned more on realism rather than dramatism. And I know, this is by far not the first film to touch on the maze of political tape one has to go through to conduct a quick and accurate investigation in the midst of a panicking city. However, this movie really drives in the point of this frustration, to the point where I wanted to snap and throw a tiny hissy fit like Agent Lammark often did throughout.

Elaborating more on the nuance of the performances, especially from Shailene Woodley and Ben Mendelssohn, while neither of their characters were revolutionary in terms of their tropes they check off, they still came across much more as actual people than similar characters in previous works. Woodley gives a gentle, respectful approach to playing a character with past mental illnesses. Mendelsohn, without spoiling too much about Lammark, is absolutely delightful to watch, despite his rather rude first impression. I’m actually happy to see him in a non villain role for a change.

One final point of appreciation about this film’s nuance I’d like to make. Director Damián Szifron likes to follow well the known filmmaker rule of “show, don’t tell.” Viewers with a sharp eye will notice several quick cuts of the observations Officer Falco makes throughout the investigation, allowing for us to make our own guesses about the killer. In other words, the director assumes his audience is smart, and while I can’t particularly say I am, I thank him for giving me that respect.

In this current environment, I’m not entirely sure how well a realistic crime thriller focusing on catching a serial killer with a gun will play off for an audience seeking escapism from the horrors of real life. However, if you’re like me and just love the thrill of unraveling a puzzle (with the bonus of a strong yet vulnerable lead female character), To Catch a Killer is a satisfying and entertaining watch.