input: I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.

Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.

This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Lost is the best TV series there is.First of all,it has GREAT actors and wonderful directing.The writing is a very controversial issue because in the first two seasons the writing was extraordinary but after season 3 the writing became highly complex.For instance,who is Jacob?Why are there polar bears on the island?What's the fog?How did the island disappear?Who is Richard Alpert?A lot of people think that the writers are lost and that they have raised a lot of questions and mysteries that they can't explain.I believe these people are wrong.I have confidence in the writers.I think that if the mysteries are revealed from now all the charm of the series will be gone.Anyway,lost is undeniably the greatest TV series and it will continue to be for a long time.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Such a film of beauty that it's hard to describe. Maybe it's the absence of superfluous dialogue, or maybe it's the absolutely stellar soundtrack, or maybe it's just Meena Mumari's feet, but it's a joy to watch this movie again and again. I've never seen another Indian movie that comes close to it, and few from any country rival its perfection.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Edward Burtynsky is a Canadian photographer who makes art out of the least "artful" objects imaginable. Everyday items such as crates, boxes, metal containers, etc. - items which most of us perceive as utilitarian at best and dismiss as being utterly without aesthetic merit - are instead converted into glorious objects d'art by Burtynsky's camera. He achieves this result by focusing on the recurring colors and geometric patterns that are apparently ever present in the industrialized world - for those perceptive enough to spot them, that is. Even heaps of compacted trash can become objects of beauty when seen through Burtynsky's lens (but didn't we already know that from "Wall-E"?). He is particularly interested in photographing areas like mines and shipyards where Man has already made incursions into nature - which may explain why at times even the people in his pictures (i.e. the workers in those places), with their uniform clothing and robotic movements, become part of the industrial landscape.

"Manufactured Landscapes," a documentary about Burtynsky's work, has much of the feel of a "Koyaanisqatsi" about it as it dazzles us with its richly variegated kaleidoscope of images and patterns. Indeed, director Jennifer Baichwal and cinematographer Peter Mettler capture the essence of the original photos in purely cinematic terms, as their own camera records Burtynsky and his assistant running photo shoots at a factory in China, a dockyard in Bangladesh, and the construction site at the massive Three Rivers Gorge Dam project in China. With their fluid camera-work, the filmmakers match point-for-point the beauty of Burtynsky's images. In fact, the movie opens with a stunning eight-minute-long tracking shot of a Chinese factory in which hundreds of similarly dressed workers toil away in perfectly symmetrical and color-coordinated rows.

The movie does less well when Burtynsky gets around to articulating the "themes" of his work, which, quite frankly, come out sounding confused, contradictory and decidedly half-baked at best. But it is as a purely aesthetic experience, highlighting image and form, that "Manufactured Landscapes" resonates most. In the case of Burtynsky, perhaps, a picture really IS worth a thousand words.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive