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.
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.