Visual strength, narrative weakness

And how would you suggest that these topics be photographed? Let's not forget that the movie is about Burtynsky, not the country.

I think that the point of the movie is being in missed here. It is not meant to be an Al-Gore-esque expository documentary about the environment. First and foremost it is meant to contextualize the photographs of Burtynsky. That being said, Burtnsky's photos obviously provide a certain amount of commentary on the environmental impact of industrialization. However, neither his pictures or the film are meant to be didactic. This is a somewhat open-ended film, as are his pictures. The film is more political than the photos are or were meant to be. The power of these images exist in their ambiguity and therefore to make a film in the traditional documentary style with and argument in hand would have taken away from Burtynsky's vision. This is not a typical doc but nowadays these types of docs are becoming the norm rather than the exception if you choose to look outside the mainstream Micheal Moore/Fast Food Nation type doc. While all the points you bring up about China are valid...those are points that should be argued in another film, not this one. Maybe the film wasnt what you were expecting but i think if you were to look at is from a different angle, one that keeps in mind the integrity of Burtnsky's art then you wouldn't be so frustrated with it.
This film is also a great commentary on the post-modern idea of image and representation... the idea that it is a film about photographs. Think about the scenes were you see the filmed version of the pic which slowly turns into Burtnsky's photo which zooms out into the gallery space in which the picture is being viewed.....

First off, don't believe the blather of the other posters about how this movie is "about Burtynski" and not its subject matter. He is engaging the world as an artist, and using his artistic vision to tell us something. The film is not some biographical statement or post-modern, navel-gazing essay about photography per se. I am saddened/disturbed by the academic posturing that would reduce these portentious images to solipsistic, sophomoric philosophy.

With that out of the way...... I believe Burtynski himself says that he wanted to let the pictures speak for themselves. And they do! What narration do you need for many of these shots? They show the consequence of our modern lifestyle--the ecological footprint of our accoutrements. Most Americans think all manufacturing is done by computerized robots on some immaculate assembly line, that recycling takes place in futuristic eco-domes. This film is a shrill clarion call meant to wake us up from those preconceptions.

The pictures should alarm you. The fact that we, as viewers, derive a kind of aesthetic enjoyment from the sublimity of these monstrosities is not an excuse to disengage from the inescapable CONCLUSION of these photos: that we are irrevocably changing the natural world. You can ask yourself, is it for the better? I think the visceral impact of these photos give an obvious answer, but don't sell the film short because it didn't spell it out for you.