Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Disappointing and undeniably dull true-crime movie that has poorly cast character actor Jeremy Renner languidly mumbling his way through the title role of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was easily one of the last century's most recognizable degenerates/serial killers. Released straight-to-video back in early 2003, "Dahmer" is an overtly talky, boring, badly acted and virtually bloodless snore-fest of a true-crime drama that never truly delves into the monstrous and demented psyche of the late mass murderer like it had the perfectly good potential to do! What it does, however, attempt to do for reasons unknown to me is evoke some sort of sympathy in the viewer for the man by portraying him out to be what is ultimately a lonely, nebbishy and severely socially inept homosexual loser who was simply lookin' for love in all the wrong places as opposed to the cold, calculating and depraved sicko and madman that he was! Overall, 2003's "Dahmer" is one that true-crime buffs everywhere might as well skip because I'm not kidding when I say that it's one of the worst serial-killer biopics ever done! It's even sorrier than other pathetic and exploitive straight-to-video trash like "Gacy", "Bundy", "Ed Gein" and "The Night Stalker"! (Turkey-Zero Stars)

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I had to watch this in school. And to sum it up...

Talentless actors, talentless script, and a talentless director.

This movie is such a waste of your time. Don't even watch the movie. Don't bother. You will be so disappointed. My teacher said it was supposed to be good. How wrong she was. She even slept through it a little. The movie's actors were just bad. The best actor in there was the old man and that's not saying much. It's has horrible plot with awful characters. So unrealistic and I can honestly said it had no point. The script was unemotional and confusing. There was points in the movie when I furrowed my brows and said, "What?". Also there were just too many loose ties and plot holes. It was just absolutely horrendous.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Anyone who has studied any physics or cognitive science will walk out disgusted after 40 min., as my wife and I did. The ignorant masses might be entertained by the hand-waiving arguments and the absurd "conclusions" drawn (without even an attempt at a logical reason) from real science. I'm offended by such nonsense presented under the guise of "science". I can only conclude that the writers picked up a quantum physics book, didn't understand a word of it, then watched The Matrix about a thousand times, and proceeded to write this movie.

For example, the Washington DC crime experiment was done by The Transcendental Meditation Program. A brief search will reveal the science of their methods. (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/dissenter.htm)

Save your money.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
This is a documentary that came out of the splendid work of a Canadian landscape photographer whose interest has long been in the ravages left on earth by the excavations or buildings of man. It begins with a vast factory complex crammed with people making a great variety of little things, parts of high-tech equipment presumably; it isn't really made very clear. The emphasis is on how big the place is and how many people are there and how they're herded around outside in little yellow jackets. The film also shows the photographer working on a tall structure to do a still of the array of these people outside the factory, and talking with his crew as he does so. This is a world of relentless industrialization. It's a relief at least to know these soulless images aren't going to be presented without a human voice, as is the case in Nikolaus Geyrhalter's gleefully cold documentary about the food industry, 'Our Daily Bread.' 'Manufactured Landscapes' contains images of people scavenging e-waste and a town (many towns, really) being wiped out by the biggest dam ever, with a single plangent trademark shot of a little girl in the rubble of her own neighborhood eating out of a bowl using a pair of chopsticks almost bigger than she is. Some of these scenes, the ones with miserably underpaid workers slaving in dangerous and toxic places, might have been shot memorably by the premier engage photographer Sebastiao Salgado. But this photographer isn't as interested in seeing people up close. His orientation places him somewhere in between Salgado and the cold, neutral modern landscape photographs of Lewis Baltz.

All this happens in China, of course, though there is earlier footage in black and white of the photographer working around a large shipbuilding site in Bangladesh. It is backed up by music in a New Age industrial style that is alternately soothing and oppressive. There are a good many stills of the photographer's work--or were some of them made by the film crew? It isn't made clear.

Edward Burtynsky is the name of the photographer. We see people wandering through exhibitions of his beautiful work-- big dramatic prints of carefully composed view camera color images with a handsome glow. The irony is that Burtynsky makes such unique and glorious pictures of places that are essentially blighted, and to the ordinary eye are dispiriting and boring. He admits himself that he takes no political stand. When we are able to compare his images with those caught by the roaming eye of the film's cinematographer Peter Mettler, Burtynsky's work almost amounts to a kind of glorification, and hence falsification. But he is showing us places that, if we look closely, reveal their full dark story of ravage and neglect no matter how finely crafted the photographs of them may be.

Logically, but not entirely fortunately, it is Burtynsky whose voice-overs narrate most of the film as it ranges over various sites. Burtynsky's "epiphanies" may have inspired his decades of fine work, but they amount to nothing but truisms about how we're changing the planet irreparably; are dependent on oil, which will run out; that China has come into the game of massive industrialization late, and so may burn out early with the depletion of fossil fuel. The interest of 'Manufactured Landscapes' would be much greater if there were perceptive new ideas to accompany it. The reasons for watching it are two: to see glimpses of Burtynsky's work and the raw materials, the spaces he visits and chronicles so beautifully; and to observe scenes from the vast, awesome, daunting, and rather horrifying industrialization of modern China.

Because of the limitations of the narration, the idea of the title 'Manufactured Landscapes' feels insufficiently developed. It even seems a misnomer. New landscapes they are, but they are the byproduct of manufacturing rather than "manufactured." 'Landscapes of Waste' or 'Wasted Landscapes' might be better titles. There is much room left by this documentary for more intellectually searching work on film about this intriguing subject; and those who want to know more about Edward Burtynsky might do better to peruse his books or exhibitions.