Okay...

Wide-open and mysterious. Well, it goes to enormous lengths to, if anything, de-mystify the case. It's the opposite to "wide-open", to me. What do you mean by "overpolished"? Slick and smooth? Clean-looking? As opposed to grainy, perhaps, and hand-held? I don't see how being "overpolished" is a bad thing.

I don't understand this, really. What's your point? Do you mean subject matter, as opposed to a film's style or "form"?

It isn't, though. The final third is, from the point where he mentions, cleverly, that he's thinking of writing a book (the one which we see sold on shelves later in the film, and the one from which the film is adapted).

There are some beautiful flourishes in there, regardless of period detail - the period detail, which people often amount to "realism" or "historical accuracy" - doesn't really excite me all that much, since I never lived in San Fransisco and never have; it's a far-away reality to me. But you didn't find worth in the overhead tracking shot of the taxi - which belied any use of CGI for me, and seemed incredibly ambitious and difficult in concept, but pulled off very well.

I'll tell you what, I'll anticipate a quote from you: "So what, it's a nice tracking shot, now I'm supposed to care about the film?"

Well, yeah; even if you deem it as a gimmick (which it may or may not be), it's still beautiful enough in and of itself to be "of worth", no? I mean in strictly cinematic terms.

Oh, but then I could ask why make films in the first place? Why make anything? Why live?

I could easily say the same thing as you but apply it to Stalker. Tarkovsky didn't need to make that film to tell us about existentialism, did he?

Don't understand the "twinkle twinkle" part of your argument, either, but I'll assume it amounts to the ever-convincing, always-conclusive opinion of "whatever".