I suppose I am trying to convince you of the film's greatness, yes, but only by means of exposing the severe inadequacies of your argument. And the inadequacies I speak of are the telling other film fans not to see it, and ignoring the film's originality, lovely imagery and other stuff besides its story.

I'd rather be unlikeable "right now" than all the time.

Oh well. I think it's a pity that you're overlooking that Fincher is using existing technologies in a way that have not been used before. Liking a film stems from the persistent enjoyment of it whilst watching, I agree. I'm just curious as to why you're not excited, whilst watching it, by the knowledge that Fincher is doing things which haven't been done before. It seems you took the premise and details of the case, magnified your indifference to them by the fact that it is in the end unsolved, and then switched off entirely, deciding to ignore technical, aesthetic and technological factors.

And to be fair and honest, DVC, you did say the case if not the film had no relevance to "[your] life or anybody else's". How you can account for others' tastes is beyond comprehension. And for the record, at the time, the case was relevant to the entire Californian region under terror, the killer himself, the investigators, the journalists covering it, and in turn the makers of the film, and then in turn again the viewers of the film. That's a lot of people that the case is relevant to, really.

So you didn't like its use of CGI, visual texture, cinematography, editing and the digital process involved in making it? If your answer is a simple NO, then fine... But I shall forever remain curious.