Don't understand the hype...

Rating: 1/10 (15 February 2014)

Why all those 10s... I honestly don't get it.
Folks, if you give this film a 10, how much should you assign to 2001 A Space Odissey? 1500/10? I am talking about a 1968 movie which still looks ways better than Gravity.
It doesn't make sense, really.
Gravity is a very average movie with good graphics, but is CGI THE film nowadays? Is it really enough? I'll agree that visually it's good sporting a valid amount of remarkable CGI, although (or maybe because) entire sequences were cloned from Kubrick's masterpiece, but is that all you need in a film? CGI? After 45 years, 2001 still looks much better, and I mean just visually, let alone all the rest.
Sorry, it's not enough for me, I also need a good script, good character development, an actual story, a damn reason why you would want to watch a movie or even produce it.
Half of this movie is just close-ups of Sandra Bullock's oversized chin while she moans, 15 minutes of her praying, I find all that unacceptable.