This movie looks great that is true, it looks wonderful oh yes, showing off extensive CGI of space, oh yes its "revolutionary"! ... Hold on. No. It isn't.

The movie does look great and I feel like most people are giving it huge praise for that, praise maybe rightfully deserved. However the minute anyone calls this new or revolutionary, is about the time anyone who doesn't plaster all their expectations and enjoyment solely on visuals should stop listening.

I'm a huge fan of sci-fi and space, I wanted to enjoy this movie, though I questioned the over-hyped cast and shameless showcasing of CGI I went into it with an open mind. But it wasn't long until I discovered a lot of what I originally expected, something I like to call "Avatar- syndrome". Referring to a film that distracts people with lovely effects and visuals, which cover-up a pi**-poor story full of clichés laden with cheesiness. Take away the great effects and everyone would notice what this movie is; bad. Just bad. Predictable, characters lacking anything unique whatsoever- Sandra Bullock is the rookie that messes up to unbelievable lengths, which adds another element to the movie, just how unrealistic it is that a person as incompetent as that would get anywhere near the space program. And of course George Clooney playing the same character he is cast as 90% of the time: a care-free hot-shot lady's-man who always knows what hes doing.

Its unimaginative and is just a survival-disaster movie. Also moving on to how this movie is supposedly "revolutionary". Am I missing something? We've known how to showcase space in movies since the 60s. "2001: A Space Odyssey" Ever heard of that? Or how bout "Alien"? Do I have to bring in "Star Wars"? I understand this is different technology that we're talking about, but really? It's unimpressive and it pushes the dogma that extensive CG can distract audiences from a lazily written, garbage plot.

Looks good, but is unimpressive, predictable, and cliché as all hell.