I see a big resemblance to the smiling recon, too. The Kevin Spacey looking one, not so much.
That other one has the Snapshot logo, so it would have been developed from his DNA, rather than postmortem photographs or the topography of his skull like a human-made recon. Some Snapshot recons turn out closer to the person than others. This one, they would have 'aged up' as most of the ones I've seen look 20-35, even when they estimate the Doe is ten years older. There was one I saw on a recently IDed Jane Doe that was uncannily close, it literally looked like a photograph of her. Others aren't as close, or actually can look dissimilar.
Like any recon, it's never going to be univerally accurate, because any recon is using averages, whether you're using a pencil, clay, digital art or photomanipulation, or a fancy algothithim. Averages don't allow for uniqueness, and so much of how our faces turn out is based on what happens after conception. A program can't predict a harelip, a birthmark, a scar, an asymmetrical smile, a nervous tic. We move our faces in a pattern unique to us throughout our lives, so the lines and creases we get settle into our faces in ways as individual as a fingerprint. That's not DNA, that's our emotion, our joy, our sadness, our expressions. DNA can dictate the shape of our faces, but not how we 'wear' them.
Also, Snapshot images always look slightly uncanny to me because they're symmetrical, and human faces never are, so it really looks like it came out of a computer. And that's fine! But it doesn't read as 'human' to me the same way a slightly impressionistic pencil drawing can. And some of that is emotional resonance to the medium, but it's more than that. A likeness doesn't equal a subject looking lifelike, and that's more a subject for artists than crime buffs. They've been arguing about it for centuries. I'm sure they'll let us know when they all agree on it.