Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

spiritof67 I'm never sure what people want from movies. Even more so, I'm not sure what they want from science fiction movies. Maybe they don't understand that its science FICTION, meaning that it doesn't need to make scientific sense. It's fiction, people. Fiction. SPOILER ALERTThat was for the people who didn't bother reading the plot synopsis. The movie has a great cast, some innovative casting (Academy Award winner, anyone?) and it established Aaron Eckhart as a real star of sci-fi. Having Stanley Tucci in the film was also good, as was Bruce Greenwood, who adds to any movie he's in. The contention of the movie is a good science fiction one and was handled very well. The story line was good as well, as were the special effects, which are crucial in a modern movie of this type. I really liked it (here it comes..) ON A MOVIE SCREEN. If you're reviewing this film on the basis of having seen it on a device or on TV, you really haven't seen it, any more than saying you've seen a postage stamp of the Mona Lisa and can thus critique the work. I really wish IMDB would make reviewers state how they watched the movie in their reviews, because like many films, this one was good in the proper format - on a screen. I can't judge how it'd be on a 4 inch screen or on TV.

buckettofmemez This movie had great potential going and they went out the window with it. The movie has a messy script and I find myself somehow lost watching it (judge me if you want). It takes awhile for the movie to actually get going and by the time you get into it the movie is over. I really wanted more with this and was excited to see a movie based off such a concept, expecting a really cool yet scientific movie. Instead I got a completely random assortment of events with sometimes no explanation whatsoever the whole movie. I am giving them credit for trying and still putting (some) heart into it, and still having some creativity.

Wuchak Released in early 2003 and directed by Jon Amiel, "The Core" is a sci-fi disaster flick starring Hilary Swank as a hotshot pilot who "flies" a giant drill into the core of the earth with a team of experts (Aaron Eckhart, Tchéky Karyo, Stanley Tucci, Delroy Lindo & Bruce Greenwood). Why? The earth's magnetic fields have gone wild and the only answer is to journey to the center of the planet, plant a series of nuclear charges and get out, thereby restoring the proper magnetic fields. DJ Qualls and Alfre Woodard offer assistance topside. The plot is a meshing of 1959's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and 1998's "Armageddon," but it's not as entertaining as either. One problem is that it lacks star power for such a blockbuster. Don't get me wrong, the main cast members are stalwart in their roles, but none of them were top-drawer actors at the time; and only Swank went on to a fairly stellar film career, although Greenwood has done pretty well and Eckhart has done okay. I'm just saying that they're a far cry from Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Ben Affleck and Michael Clarke Duncan (all from "Armageddon").Despite the incredible disaster scenario and the dubious science (I guess that's why they call it science-FICTION, huh?), the story's fairly engaging, occasionally thrilling and sometimes even wondrous in the manner of 1966's "Fantastic Voyage" and 1979's "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." The main characters being stuck in and around an earth-burrowing ship also bring to mind movies like 1979's "Alien" and 1989's "The Abyss." Yet "The Core" somehow comes across as second-rate to these hallmark films(not that I'm a big fan of "The Abyss," but it's better than this). Jon Amiel directed 1993's underrated "Sommersby" and 1999's "Entrapment," but when "The Core" flopped at the box office (not majorly, but it still failed to make a profit) he left behind feature films for TV directing, which he didn't even do until two years after "The Core." Still, it's worth checking out if you like the cast and are in the mode for an earth-threatening disaster flick. The film runs 135 minutes and was shot mainly in British Columbia, but with scenes from around the US and world (e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge, Rome, Paris and Trafalgar Square, England).GRADE: C

david-103-755595 This story is hokey in its first premise, the "science", even if it is science fiction, is still hokey and the characters are extremely stereotypical and hokey. The interaction between the heroic woman and the chauvinistic men is hokey. The self-centered plagiarist of a scientist is hokey. The heroism of the heroes is even hokey.But I enjoyed it. I think the movie makers knew how hokey it was (they had to) and made it anyway. It was a fun adventure. I loved the male and female lead, and the geek and the Black scientist. The geek's role was dramatized to the last degree, but was fun to watch. I always like it when a geek plays an important role in a film or book. That's as much as I can say without spoilers.