>I don't want to undersell how extraordinary the visual
>achievement is here, or the audio achievement for that matter.
>That part of it is unpredictable. You simply can't anticipate
>the rush of the experience.
>
>The story? Sure. I was hoping for something either more akin
>to 2001, utterly unpredictable in its plot machinations and
>structure, or if it was going to be purely survivalist,
>something more akin to the upcoming All Is Lost (this film's
>cousin in a lot of ways), where we wouldn't delve into the
>typical backstory . But this movie does have back story
>injected into the mix, occasionally on the nose, and the plot
>is a series of ticking clock devices which you can usually
>guess how they come to pass. Which after a fairly atypical
>first 30-40 minutes I admit was initially somewhat of a
>letdown. (MILD SPOILER: you can sort of pinpoint the moment
>where the movie switches gears, where. Clooney essentially
>asks Bullock, "so, what's your life like back on Earth?")
>
>HOWEVER, even if you know where the film is going, you'll be
>gripping your armrests as you get there. Just because the
>story is simple and/or corny doesn't mean you won't be in fear
>of it departing from that path. This is largely thanks to the
>extraordinary, extraordinary visuals. THEY keep you guessing,
>even if the story really doesn't. If that makes sense.
>
>I'd read the Edelstein review I posted below. He nails it:
>sure, the story turns corny and predictable, especially by the
>end, but the experience it, as he puts it,
>"infuckingcredible."
>

Thanks for your time there with the response. I'll catch the mattinee for this tomorrow, although I'm still on the fence since the story is somewhat boilerplate according to what you first said. This will be my first 3D IMAX movie, and the Lincoln Center IMAX screen is a huge one, at least I'm hoping the screen they use is the mega large one, so hopefully that will temper any ill feelings I may have towards the possible subpar story.