The Killer isn't good. Why did I watch it twice?

Even if I don't love the movies themselves, I'm helplessly compelled by the absolutely insane amount of precision Fincher impresses upon seemingly "simple" or B-movie material. The Killer was almost a reductio ad absurdum of this.

I saw the movie in the theater—I wanted to pay for the privilege of seeing it on the big screen. And it was worth it, weirdly: I was so riveted by its craft that the fact that it didn't "add up" as a movie just made it even more helplessly compelling to me. So I watched it again on Netflix the very next day, because I just couldn't stop thinking about it. Would the movie work better as a movie now that I knew where it was going? Did I miss something?

No. I didn't. The Killer is still as perfectly empty as a Platonic solid.

But still! Pure process-porn is its own reward sometimes, and I went down the behind-the-scenes rabbit hole. This explainer on how Fincher composited the living shit out of the first scene (guy sits alone in empty room; looks out window a lot) is genuinely astonishing:

And this video essay on how Fincher's unique way of moving the camera "locks in" your attention honestly blew my mind:

Kubrick's icy formal control just doesn't fascinate me in the same way. Maybe because it's too showy or pretentious. Fincher's is more like sleight of hand. It's so fluid and seamless that it doesn't necessarily look like something amazing or special is happening. But on a subconscious level it feels that way. And then I desperately want to know how he did it.