The Core (2003) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
476 Reviews
Sort by:
Logic takes a beating
davidmay28 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This expose is for people who have seen the movie and can't quite put their finger on why they have come away feeling so dirty. Well people, following are a few reasons why The Core poops all over science along with having the worst plot, characters and premise of all time.

Firstly, that little speech the physicist gave to the class about sound traveling through rocks? He says something about the wavelength increasing (ding right), and then says the frequency will decrease (bzzz wrong). Frequency stays the same regardless of the medium it is traveling through. It is the wavelength that will in fact decrease.

Secondly, what's with the explanation of how the Earth is going to end? Burning a peach with a deodorant can? Come on, I know military people are considered no-brainers, but he was demonstrating this to the people that lead a high tech organization. This patronises any military personnel, as well as the audience.

Thirdly, The premise of the film is based around the effects that occur because the core of the Earth stops rotating. Let me just first note that there are geological records to say that the magnetic field has changed direction many times in the past, with evidence to support that each time it has been reduced close to 0. To the best of my knowledge, and that of every history book out there, this happens without any of us combusting like the peach.

Fourthly, the scene with the golden gate bridge heating up because of a hole in the magnetic field? I think someone got magnetic field and ozone layer mixed up. The idea of punching a hole in a field is absurd. The field may be weakened, but the atmosphere would still protect our little bridges from cosmic radiation.

Fifthly, there is a force field (magnetic) around the Earth, not much of one, but there is one, not an "electromagnetic energy field". An energy field would do sweet f*ck all to deflect radiation. The same radiation that is supposed to wipe out humans like the peach...

Sixthly, 5 200-megaton nukes? Come on, those would weigh about 250 tons together. Let's try transport that on the dildo shaped 'virgil'. And the computer simulations of how they would be set off? All in 1 spot? That wouldn't create the required rotational force, since there would be no rotational force due to symmetry. He finally gets it right in the end to place them apart from each other. How they initially overlooked this one, I have no idea.

Seventhly, the material used to withstand all the pressure and temperature on 'virgil' was called 'unobtainium'. nuff said.

Eighthly, assuming we just spent the entirety of the world's budget on developing paradoxically copious amounts of unobtanium, it would take another 10 budgets over to have the resources to "control" the internet.

Ninthly, when 'virgil' was tunneling downwards, why could the people walk around inside as if it was horizontal? They mentioned the rotating bridge, but didn't mention anything about rotating hallways, or the rip in the space-time continuum needed to walk straight between the bridge and the subsequent hallways. The compartments would need to rotate individually, which would put them out of alignment with each of the other compartments. Logically, they would be aligned parallel for everyone to be walking horizontal, and not fall to the front of the ship, as the front is pointing towards the centre of the Earth. If only they could pretend virgil was round, and the entire inside could rotate as one. A pity every shot shows a long cylindrical ship incapable of this.

Tenthly, the giant geode that they crash into? All that pressure, all that temperature? But if that wasn't enough, they get out, and walk around. I know those space suits they had on looked cool, but they couldn't withstand the ~1000 degrees of temperature, and a few thousand kPa of pressure that is needed to keep the geode from collapsing under the weight of the world.

Eleventhly, when the ship springs a leak? It would have been like a nuke going off in the ship, but instead, it took a few minutes for the compartment to crush.

Twelfthly, the unlucky guy that has to walk through 9000 degrees temperature in a suit only designed to withstand 5000 degrees. He makes it to the duct and switches the lever? 9000 degrees is about 2-3 times the temperature of a nuclear bomb going off. I think the walls and floor of the corridor would have been glowing white with heat. Our man would have been vaporised, but lucky for him, only his converse pumps melted to get to the lever.

Thirteenthly, the guy that pulls out the plutonium rods undergoing fission? He didn't even have a helmet on. $10 says his kids will have 5 noses, 3 mouths, and a foot coming out of their heads. I guess it's a good thing though that the DNA of such a twit is wiped from our society in these industrial accidents.

Fourteenthly, when the power cut out from the lack of reactor rods, they hook up the power cables to the inner hull. Where do they put the ground? There needs to be a potential drop for power to be gained, and if there was a ground, then anyone that touched the hull would have been electrocuted.

Fifteenthly, the arming code for the nukes was the first four prime numbers... 1 2 3 5... Pretty sure 1 is not a prime number.

Well, thats about all, and thats not even going into the fact about how the core could stop spinning in the first place. Thanks for your time.
153 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I actually enjoyed this one...
buiger29 April 2007
How do you jump start the Earth's core? Well, if you want to find out (and have a few laughs in between) all you need to do is watch 'The Core'...

Yes, it's stupid, yes, it makes no sense, yes, the science is flawed, and yes, it's impossible. Nevertheless, I have to say I enjoyed watching this movie. It's one of those 'get a beer and some popcorn, turn your brain off and enjoy the afternoon' type of pictures. If you are not pretentious and take this film for what it is, you are more likely than not to enjoy it as I did.

All in all, this is a classic disaster flick, and for a disaster flick, this is above average.
44 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Core has chewy center, cheesy surface
Dan Franzen (dfranzen70)23 September 2003
Hollywood's gone to the outer reaches of our galaxy (not to mention others), it's plumbed the depths of the ocean, mapped dank swamps and arid deserts, but one place it hasn't gone to with any sort of regularity is the inner core itself.

The Core is certainly one of those movies for which one must suspend disbelief. It's a science-fiction movie that emphasizes fiction over all; that is, the physics of the film don't hold up to snuff. If you're an engineer or physicist, you should be smart enough not to watch it - you'll just spend most of your time second-guessing the inane psuedoscience.

It seems the inner core of the Earth has stopped spinning, for some reason, and this has caused the electromagnetic field that surrounds and protects the planet to begin to decompose. This is evidenced by, among other things, pigeons in Tralfagar Square in London suddenly veering at plate-glass windows and sundry people who wish they were extras in a less-violent movie, like Daddy Daycare or maybe Finding Nemo. At any rate, the world's leading scientists, commissioned by the military (it wouldn't be a Save the Planet from Imminent Destruction without our pals in the movie military), figure out that the core's stopped rotating, and that Something Must Be Done to get it going again.

Ah, but what? We've only drilled down about 8 miles, and according to my calculations the distance from the surface to the core is .... a bit further. We must drill down, sayeth the sage scientists, and lo and behold, through the magic of movies, there's this guy in the desert who's been working on a laser rocket thingy that'll help them blast all the way down. This handy little thing is just the cure, so a crew is hastily assembled: Commander Iverson (Bruce Greenwood), Major Beck Childs (Hilary Swank), Dr. Josh Keyes (Aaron Eckhart), Dr. Serge Leveque (Tcheky Karyo), Dr. Conrad Zimsky (Stanley Tucci), and Dr. Ed Brazzelton.

Like such doomsday movies as Armageddon, what The Core has going for it are likeable characters and a lot of nifty FX. It also has the unknown working for it; we don't know what lies beneath the thin crust of the Earth, because we haven't drilled beyond it. That allows filmmakers a lot of free reign to depict whatever the heck they want in terms of What's Down There.

What The Core has going against it, however, is a predictable plot and some howlingly awful dialog. Now, it's not giving anything away to mention that at least one person doesn't make it back from this mission. It's also not giving anything away to note that there's at least one knockdown, drag-out hissy fit of a scene in which Keyes admonishes Childs for something she didn't do. It's hysterical to watch, although I suspect the emotion the director was attempting to convey was more like empathy, not euphoria. Or ennui, which is unfortunately how some of the movie felt.

The Core is cheesy. No, not the actual inner core - although, come to think of it, maybe it is, since we don't know for sure what it's made of. And wouldn't that be fitting? A cheesy core for a cheesy film made by cheesy people in a cheesy society? Who's up for some Muenster?
112 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A middling, mildy entertaining diversion.
Li-118 April 2003
** out of ****

The Core is the "low-budget" answer to Armageddon, meaning it was made on less than half the cost but desires to be its equal in delivering thrills and big buckets of popcorn fun. Now, whether or not you liked Armageddon is a good determinant of whether or not you should even bother watching The Core in the first place. I myself haven't seen that Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer production in a while, and memory serves that it was an unbelievably preposterous, but enjoyable thrill ride that had a great sense of humor. How does The Core compare?

Well, if I hadn't seen Armageddon, I might have liked this film more, which is not to say that it's a weaker movie, just that the disaster formula plays out in much the same way so there's a sense of deja vu hanging over the proceedings. There are a lot of people out there who hated Armageddon, perhaps for its absurd science or for its quick-cut action sequences, so for those who didn't like the latter, The Core would be more up their alley, though the science here is even sillier.

The premise is the anti-Deep Impact/Armageddon. A group of expert individuals have to go to the center of the Earth to jumpstart the core, which has stopped spinning for some unknown reason. Heading this mission is professor Josh Keys (Aaron Eckhart), who's leading a six-man team, with a woman playing a key role, of course, as the pilot, played by Hilary Swank. Recognizable faces Delroy Lindo, Tcheky Karyo, Stanely Tucci, and Bruce Greenwood round out the rest of this very expendable team.

Already, we realize the plot is fundamentally impossible. The only people who wouldn't recognize this are those still in grade school, so they'll probably get a kick out of the movie while thinking they're getting some kind of education out of this because of all the scientific mumbo-jumbo and technobabble. More discriminatory viewers will scoff at all the sudden new inventions that aid our intrepid group of heroes, particularly the hull Delroy Lindo devises that's actually strengthened by heat. For me, scientific flaws are acceptable so long as it's not so blatantly obvious, but this movie's stretching my suspension of disbelief.

But those who don't care for any scientific inaccuracies will wonder, is the action any good? The answer's a mixed bag. Almost all the action is entirely CGI-related, so the question of whether or not you find it exciting to see an "earthcraft" (named Virgil) get banged around quite a few times is crucial to your enjoyment. The action aboveground is all given away in the trailers, and none of it's particularly exciting, thanks to the weak special effects. The space shuttle crash, the destruction of the Roman Colosseum and the Golden Gate bridge are not examples of CGI-work at its best, to put it kindly. A 60 million dollar budget isn't quite enough to pull a movie of this sort off, and it sometimes shows.

Surprisingly enough, the scenes set below ground do somewhat make up for the slack. A crisis is introduced every five to ten minutes to keep the characters working, so what we get is a briskly paced and often enjoyable second half. The effects work is still spotty, but I found the characters relatively engaging, the situations fairly compelling, and the Mcgyverish-solutions amusing. Still marring this outing on a consistent basis, however, are the film's predictability, the occasionally really bad dialogue, the lack of solid intentional humor, and the stilted finale. The Core is not an unenjoyable timewaster, but it's not exactly a great night at the movies, either.
89 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much better than I had expected.
Rob_Taylor18 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I went into the Core expecting to see the worst movie of all time. Perhaps because my hopes were so low for this movie I actually found it not as bad as I had feared. In fact, it was quite enjoyable.

Sure, there are plenty of dumb moments in it and the science is questionable, at best. But it is moderately entertaining and fun. There are some spoilers ahead.

The silly, but amusing stuff:

Journeying to the centre of the Earth is bad enough - but did they have to do it in something that reminded me of my Hornby train set from when I was a kid?

Just how does a penniless scientist living in the desert make (let alone invent) a substance that would revolutionise modern life?

Why did that scientist not immediately patent and sell his substance and make a fortune from it, which he could then use to fund his Earth ship?

I'm sorry, but the "Project Destiny stopped the Core spinning but it can't start it again" line doesn't wash with me.

The computer hacker. Yawn.

No kissing at the end, despite the obvious attraction of the two characters for each other.

However, despite the above, I enjoyed the film and was able to overlook the silliness. There was one thing, though, which had me gritting my teeth and shaking my head.

The manual release mechanism for the pod separation. Nobody would design it that way, even if they were under a deadline to complete the project. It's the equivalent of designing a plane with the landing gear release lever on the outside! Or a car with the gear lever in the boot/trunk! Stupid, just plain stupid.

Up until that point I was enjoying the movie. That kind of killed it a bit, but I soldiered on and enjoyed the rest of the film in spite of it.

All in all, much better than I had expected, and worth watching on a rainy day, or even a mildly cloudy one.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The explanation for all the 'science' in this 'science' fiction
RogerBorg21 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
How could trillions of tons of spinning molten metal suddenly just stop- A WIZARD IT.

If it had stopped, wouldn't the magnetic field just collapse immediately - A WIZARD DID IT.

Why would a vanishing field cause electrical storms- A WIZARD DID IT.

Can you use a 3000 degree nuclear reactor as a power source when the temperature outside is 9000 degrees- A WIZARD DID IT.

Why even have EVA facilities if there are no conceivable circumstances under which you expect to use them- A WIZARD DID IT.

Why would you put headlights on a vehicle that doesn't have windows- A WIZARD DID IT.

How do you bend your arms under a jillion quatloos per square inch of pressure- A WIZARD DID IT.

Do NASA-trained pilots often abandon the controls immediately after they've established that the autopilot is incompetent- A WIZARD DID IT.

Hang on though; how do you steer a vessel with no control surfaces anyway- A WIZARD DID IT.

How on Earth (or in Earth) are a few megatons of explosives supposed to effect a trillion tons of superheated metal- A WIZARD DID IT.

How... how did they expect to go back up.. what... how- A WIZARD DID IT.

And the biggest mystery of all; how did such a dull, unengaging, androgynous botoxed stick insect with more fat in her lips than the rest of her body, and an acting range that runs all the way from "pouty" to "petulant" win an award for best actress in a leading role not just once, but twice?

You guessed it: A WIZARD DID IT.
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than often given credit for
Clay Thompson16 August 2006
I am watching "The Core" after having read several other comments about the movie. The sentiments expressed go from being "Fine Movie" to "Worst Movie ever," the last obviously coming from someone who rated "Starship Troopers" as the "greatest Sci Fi movie ever made." There are parts of this movie that are actually very good. The first thing to give credit for was the cast that they had. It is a very good cast. Let me repeat, a very good cast. Alfrie Woodard has never given a bad performance, and although her role was relatively small, she brought moral gravity to the role that the movie needed. Delroy Lindo showed a range that I have never seen him do. Obviously better recognized as a man in control, he was nigh on perfect as the forgotten but brilliant scientist who still stings over Stanley Tucci's Conrad Zimsky having stole his discoveries from a generation earlier. Tucci, a fine actor, did take it over the top a bit too much. DJ Qualls gives an underrated performance. He is 6'2" but makes us believe he is a 5'7" geek. He gave a touching performance as he tried to slow down the big bad that caused the problem in the first place. Aaron Eckhart, normally a baddie, did a believable performance, with Hillary Swank, a two time Oscar winner bringing her easily recognized skills to the screen.

I originally wanted to blame Director Jon Amiel for the faults of the movie, but when I went back and considered individual roles and scenes, I realized that he did the job he was paid to do. The visual effects were more than adequate, constrained by the need, not for realism, but by the need to show things that would further the story.

So where did it go wrong? First, the problem, I believe, was with the writing. The script was very uneven. Part of it came from what appears to be last minute changes in the story line. Early trailers suggest a very different story -- and rumors from Hollywood at the time indicated this was true.

Too much of the story telling was quick and dirty, trying to just get it done. Had they not been locked in to a predetermined release date, they could have gotten the script right. Second, it seems there was a problem with editing. There were times when the film just went clunk. Was it poor editing in and of itself? Or was it editing that had to serve the problems with the script. Far from a perfect movie, but one with some very good elements. Give credit where credit is due.
71 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
basicleepurfect20 October 2003
This was a great movie. It's not meant to be anything meaningful or useful, it's meant to entertain and it does so perfectly. There is quite a bit of humor which makes even the most implausible parts worth watching and extremely entertaining. If you combined the best parts of "Armageddon" (which was wonderful) and the funniest lines from "Evolution" (the one with David Duchovny) you will have this movie.

Yes, it's campy. Yes, the science is noteworthy only for being completely impossible, and YES it is a wonderfully funny and entertaining movie.

So what are you waiting for, go SEE IT!
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Possibly the Worst Film Ever Made
cappados5 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Written by people who must have failed all of their high school science classes, directed by someone who must have never seen a computer actually function, this film is jam packed with the most tired clichés of filmdom. The acting is abominable--and by actors who are very talented. Shot almost entirely in television style close ups, this film is an insult to intelligence. It all starts with an awful script--it really seems like someone just recorded a bunch of twelve year olds playing "rocket ship" together--"whoah, someone diverted our energy! where's it gone?"(actual line!)--transcribed it, and decided to spend one hundred million dollars on it.

No reason to write a spoiler, you've seen it all before a hundred times, mostly on television.

Basically, if Ed Wood was given a gigantic budget, this is what he would've made.

It just goes to show that in the words of Miles Davis, "you can't polish a turd."
21 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than its reputation
Marshtacular25 January 2005
The Core is a solid action-adventure/disaster flick with a novel idea and a great cast. True, it is very silly, and some of the effects don't quite come off, but that's true of most films in its genre. I've watched it on DVD a couple of times now, always late at night, always steeped in alcohol, and I have to say it passes a couple of very easy hours. The opening scene in Trafalgar Square with the crazy pigeons is better than anything in The Day After Tomorrow. And who can resist the beautiful, talented, Oscar-winning actress Hilary Swank? So please give The Core a break. Stop taking it so seriously. Down a six pack and accept The Core into your lives.
175 out of 293 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
garbage. period.
anandblr13 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS!!! actually- what would spoil the film is actually watching it.

the sheer magnitude of idiocy boggles the mind. I have never seen a movie that was as much a waste of film as this was. I haven't bothered to see who wrote the screenplay for this flick because I'm afraid I'll never see anything he's attached to. ever. there are so many clichés is this movie it defies imagination.

exhibit a- reluctant unlikely hero who SAVES THE WORLD!!!

exhibit b- team of world- savers who get killed one by one.

exhibit c- unappreciated guy sacrifices life to save above mentioned world. lots and lots of emotional blackmail.

exhibit d- unsure female lead who 'finds herself' thanks to hero. with smooch during moment of danger (why god why???!!???)

exhibit e- geeky hacker dweeb

exhibit f- said dweeb 'hacks the world!" his word not mine.

exhibit g- bad dude sacrifices himself to save the world. glib last words included.

exhibit h- incessant use of 'oh my god??!!?!!'

don't. please don't. please don't see this movie. it sucks.
25 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
How bad is this film?
colinTheBarSteward15 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I've voted a one, but i can't decide if it's supposed to be a serious film. If it is, my vote stands. If, however, it's an insidious and subtle parody of recent disaster films it might be a triumph... i doubt it, though.

I can't even remember half of the gaping plot holes and moments where anyone with a science education above infant level would scoff at, but the one thing that does stand out for me was the remaining two protagonists bodging up a perpetual motion machine to rescue themselves.

Ummm... surely a film about the socio-political consequences of such an action would be far more interesting. But, nope, we get some piece of cobblers about the centre of the earth stopping spinning.

Worse than "Armageddon", probably worse than "ID4".
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worth a Dollar if You Have Two Hours to Kill
Quicksand15 January 2005
How can you tell when a director is bad? I mean, assuming the director is given $50 million or so, competent actors, and a halfway-decent script, what would the film look like if he/she REALLY didn't know what he/she was doing? I think that film would look a lot like "The Core."

From the preview stage, this movie was on my "might see it but not pay for it" list, so I just now caught it on cable. Hilary Swank and Aaron Eckhart will definitely have Oscars someday, and most of the other actors who make it on the ship are of similar caliber. The comic relief generally works ("I'm going to need Xena tapes and lots of Hot Pockets"), and the plot is no more ridiculous than, say, "The Day After Tomorrow" (though it is slightly LESS ridiculous-- at least this movie attempts to offer a cause for the problem, however unlikely).

I remember watching "Entrapment," another John Amiel film, and thinking it was, in a word, awful. The editing was off, the plot lumbered ahead only through the will of Sean Connery's accent and Catherine Zeta-Jones spandex-clad anatomy. Watching "The Core," Amiel has decided his mistake was pacing, and turns up the volume to eleven and full speed ahead, hoping the charisma of his actors covers his butt. In the second half of the film, this works fine. In the first half, it just shows his limitations as a director... poor special effects during the space shuttle landing that could easily have been fixed with model work or different camera angles; birds going crazy and smacking into buildings look exactly like someone tossed a dummy against a building, then the editor cut it as close as possible. Truly, this is a man at the helm who doesn't know what a good film is supposed to look like. I wonder what an Ed Wood movie would have looked like, if someone had given THAT guy $50 million?

Characters die with clockwork predictability, and my only problem with the resolution was the actors were TOO good. They play geniuses, the absolute best in their fields, so when the movie ends I wanted to spend more time with them, see what incredible problems, discoveries, adventures they had next. The movie itself is barely a D+, thanks to the actors, occasionally adequate special effects (which we will call simply "effects"), and a really great score to hold it all together. I'd buy the score (not the pop songs over the credits) before I'd watch the movie again, but it's a thumbs up effort for everyone who isn't Amiel. Worth a dollar if you have two hours to kill.
51 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could be the worst movie ever
paul_s9825 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Because I am generally a fan of sci-fi films, I gave this movie a few hours of my time this afternoon.

After about ten minutes of (spoilers): Confused pigeons flying into windows, the Space Shuttle landing in the "LA River," ridiculous electrical storms and unrealistic plot lines, I found myself wishing the Earth's magnetic field was really screwed up so I could be taken out of my misery.

There is nothing positive about this movie to report. Sometimes bad movies still have some kind of unexplainable charm, but this piece of cinematic trash can't even deliver there.

Films like this are supposed to AT LEAST have decent special effects, but not this gem! The "exciting" space shuttle scene looked like somebody took their toy shuttle and threw it off a roof while filming with their new camcorder... horrible! I truly feel insulted that a motion picture company would sign off on this and expect anybody with an IQ over 50 to like it! In fact, I'm heading out for treatment right now because I'm doubting my own sanity because I actually sat there and watched it! Trust me... skip this and watch something else!
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A cinematic kick in the testicles (mild spoilers)
big_john2222 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I just got done watching, if that's what you can call it. It happens to be one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Not since "Mission to Mars" have I hated a movie so much. This movies few supporters try to say "relax, and enjoy a mindless disaster flick."

The question is, exactly how mindless are we supposed to be? Should we completely remove our brain first by smashing our head on a rock until it falls out, because if so, I'll do it. It would surely be a hell of a lot less painful than watching this rancid mass of decay again. And I love mindless action flicks. The problem is even for a pure f/x only movie, it sucks. All the "special" (as in, short school bus special) effects look like they were done by some failing college students using their pirated and hacked version of 3D studio. During the space shuttle crash sequence, I was half expecting to see little strings attached as it bounced around like it was in a freaking puppet show.

The "acting" (a very loose term) was below sub par, and everyone seemed like they hated the very movie they were acting in. Hilary Swank's character couldn't be any more plastic, annoying, and clichéd if she tried, and as for the rest of the cast, yuck. Delroy Lindo, was okay as Dr. Ed Brazzleton. I wish I could have skin that could withstand 4500 degree heat for 5 minutes. (It was 9000 degree in the core, but the suit could 'only' handle 4500 degrees, and naturally, someone has to go outside.) Then again, it might have been lucky for him, so he didn't have to suffer the humiliation of being 'saved' by whales.

All in all, this movie was an abomination; a freak of nature that could have only been devised by the most twisted and sadomasochistic of minds. Maybe in about 10 years or so, they'll do a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" for it.
44 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A nice and entertaining adventure.
artryda9 April 2003
First I watched the trailer and it promised a descent adventure-flick. Then I read various comments... and they made me shiver. But between the lines I got the feeling that watching this movie would be the right decision.

And I wasn't disappointed.

I think most of you know what it is all about and I can omit the summary of the 'story'.

Anybody should be aware of the fact that this movie was surely never meant to be serious and sometimes just pretends to be. It's all about a great adventure of venturing to the earth's core - awaking memories of Jules Verne. Certainly nobody had, at that time, seriously expected people thousands of miles under the ocean, walking through caverns to the middle of the earth or to be shot to the moon with big cannons...

As in Star Trek they make something up which sounds cool and (at most times) fit into the story but not in our scientific point of view. Especially as a scientist I laughed out loud at various points when they talk scientific nonsense or pretend to be serious. But even including the predictability, all this doesn't diminish the entertaining potential of this film - it is certainly not a comedy but with more self-mockery than Armageddon, which is a good sign.

If you know what to expect you won't be disappointed. I give it 7 out of 10.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better Than Many People Claim
Theo Robertson28 February 2005
I remember the critics really laid into THE CORE on its initial release . Granted the central premise of Planet Earth stopping on its axis is ridiculous but the script structure compensates for the bizarre scientific impossilbilities . Look at the opening scene with people dropping dead in Boston , it does its job of drawing the audience into the story . It doesn't stop there because a few moments later we cut to London and see a remake of THE BIRDS . Not not good enough for you ? Well wait around because they'll hopefully be a disaster around the corner that will appeal to you

It's never explained in any convincing detail how the Earth's core stopping spinning can cause these effects but we're talking about a Hollywood movie not some theory put forward by Stephen Hawking . Unlikely events do happen in Hollywood movies as if you hadn't noticed so when people criticise this movie as being " Dumb " they're perhaps taking life a little too seriously

For what it is - A dumb movie with special effects and an action adventure concept - THE CORE certainly succeeds . We're shown a ballsy heroine played by Hilary Swank who can actually act and unlike say the very similar Armageddon we don't have to put up with macho American flag waving at every opportunity .

If you're looking for an entertaining pop corn movie THE CORE should do the trick
95 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Remember why we GO to movies?
Erin (abner_en)21 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Movies are supposed to be fun. Entertainment. And on that score, I think The Core answers. If you want everything to be scientific and plausible, you'd be better off watching a documentary, but The Core is no less fantastic than the novels of Jules Verne (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Journey to the Centre of the Earth). Instead, I think expectations have changed.

Yes, The Core requires a massive amount of suspension of disbelief. And personally, I'm willing to suspend it. Would the Earth's core stop spinning? Unlikely. Would we be able to restart it if we did? Improbable. Do I care? Not one bit.

The Core is a movie I never tire of, and I think it is one of the better natural disaster movies. The performances are solid and the dialog interesting. If your problem is the performance of the script, I can't say anything more, but if you're quibbling about the "scientific errors", and I'm sure there are many, I have this to say to you: Relax. Have fun. You'll live longer.
20 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poor science but better fun
SnoopyStyle12 October 2013
The core of the earth has stopped spinning, and its protective magnetic field is disappearing. The world starts to suffer from unusual disasters. The only people that could stop it is a disparate group of individuals who must travel to the center of the earth and set off some nuclear warheads.

It's a good excuse to blow up all the world's best places. The science is passable as these doomsday scenario goes. It's not the worst sci-fi idea. This has some fun moments. They had fun blowing stuff up. The story moves along nicely. It's fun even with DJ Qualls 'hacking' the earth. The CG is top notch. There isn't anything wrong with that part. It's a big budget treatment of a sci-fi B-movie concept.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty fun to watch if you aren't looking for a masterpiece
johnsamo-121 May 2005
Definitely not worthy of paying to see in the theaters, but its a pretty entertaining piece of cheesy popcorn if you don't go into it expecting a serious sci-fi film. What sells it for me is the acting. Stanley Tucci in particular comes off well. Its clear he knows he's in a cheesy movie, but rather than pull a Dustin Hoffman and try and take it seriously, he dives right in and starts chewing scenery in a big way. I half expected him to literally start gnawing on the set. The plot is pretty clever and keeps throwing obstacles in the way of the crew that they have to use their smarts to overcome.

But anyway, if you've got some bucks to spare and like a cheesy flick now and them, you could do worse.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
B-Grade entertainment
Meredith-715 October 2003
I didn't mind this film, but then, I was not expecting much. The "disaster" was built up nicely in the first 30 minutes, with some decent special effects. The acting was above par for this type of film, but the characters seemed to be a little underdeveloped. Very much a poor mans Armageddon, this is good Sunday afternoon entertainment. The film is a little long, it drags a bit in the middle, and the ending is contrived - but it's a lot better than some of the other "blockbusters" currently released.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not Great Science, but not bad science
WALLETMAN8 April 2003
A lot of people including myself anticipated this movie with great dismay. The last thing we need is another sci-fi movie based on bad science.

As a geologist, I have viewed THE CORE and I believe that the film is not as awful as I had feared. There are several instances of blatant neglect, but overall, the science is good. And the parts where they jump the gun and shoot off the scientific radar are compensated for by the fact that they invent ways to get around it.

The movie is a run of the mill save everyone by killing yourself type flick, but it does keep you interested, and gives a much needed update to the genre of exploring what is beneath us. An all star cast make the characters meaningful and you grow attached to them.

I think that this film is good. 6/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just Fun
DumaNV7 April 2003
A really nice way to spend an afternoon, The Core does not pretend to be a huge Sci-Fi mega movie, but rather a pretty good romp with some pretty nice special effects (the birds, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc.) and even like to poke at itself.

I love Sci-Fi movies where the professor or the hot-shot pilot don't have all the answers and yes, there are holes in this film that you could drive cities through, but really, who cares?

Sit back, munch on that popcorn, sip on that soda, and have just fun with this predictable, simple, yet enjoyable movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This film is made of pure unobtainium
mfisher4526 January 2005
I don't know much about geology, but what little I do know suggests that the nature of the Earth's core is such as to be impervious to any merely human intervention, and that traveling to it is something human beings probably never will be able to do. Hence, any SF flick about humans doing one to rectify the other is likely to be as fanciful as The Wizard of Oz, so a big "caveat emptor" is attached to this movie. I figured that anyone audacious enough to cook up an eco-fable like this would have checked his science so as to make the movie more believable, but apparently I was wrong according to the legion of IMDb reviewers who have savaged this film.

This film reminded me a bit of the 1966 film "Fantastic Voyage," in which a group of scientists and their craft are shrunk to the size of a microbe and injected into the body of a scientist (or was it a diplomat?) who has been wounded in an assassination attempt, in a race against time to save his life. "The Core" resembles "Fantastic Voyage" in several ways: First, the technological premise that makes possible travel to this inaccessible realm is so far-fetched as to be more magical than scientific. Second, in all but a few places, the inside of the body is naturally quite dark, and so, one would think, is the interior of the Earth; but in both movies, these unseen realms are aglow with light. Third, the sex ratio is similar: Four men, one woman, who of course is played by Raquel Welch. Fourth, none of the characters rises much above stereotype, since the story is driven by situation, not characters. Fifth, come to think of it, Hilary Swank, while not as voluptuous as the young Raquel Welch (who could be?), does slightly resemble her. Sixth, the events of the film are kept secret from the public, and Edmund O'Brien's General Carter is very similar to General Purcell, who is played by that excellent and serviceable character actor Richard Jenkins. (Unfortunately, every time I saw Jenkins, I was distracted by memories of his hilarious performance as Walter Wingfield in "Say It Isn't So.") I will say one thing in this film's defense: As absurd as it may be, and as uninspired in terms of plot, characterization, visual effects and believability, it did keep me watching to find out what would happen next all the way to the end.
69 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I can't believe I paid to see this movie.
jlhbird11 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER I should get a refund for just sitting through the Core. It was a whopping 2.5 hours of boredom. Within the first five minutes I knew that the two main characters would get together, the rest of the crew would die, and they would be successful. The movie hit rock bottom when the characters got out of their ship into a geode that couldn't possibly exist. The temperature was about 9000 degrees and they're walking around in aluminum foil suits(witch conduct heat and energy). The only good part of the movie is when the guy who made DESTINY dies. I don't recommend this movie to anyone who has ever had a conscious thought or has an IQ equivalent to a small stone. If you want to see the movie, don't; Just watch the preview, it shows you the entire movie in 30 seconds.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews