User Score
4.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 89 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 89
  2. Negative: 40 out of 89
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 7, 2012
    0
    The label of "science fiction" doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want and expect audiences to believe it.
  2. Dec 22, 2012
    7
    The story is highly improbable, not credible (pigeons tearing bullet holes through plate glass windows[!?!], hysterical, ill-trained "terranauts", a terraship infinitely more complicated than the "Manhattan Project" built in 90 days, static electrical storms that feature lightning strikes that blow up things instead of going to ground) BUT the story was FUN! It was a hell of a ride if weThe story is highly improbable, not credible (pigeons tearing bullet holes through plate glass windows[!?!], hysterical, ill-trained "terranauts", a terraship infinitely more complicated than the "Manhattan Project" built in 90 days, static electrical storms that feature lightning strikes that blow up things instead of going to ground) BUT the story was FUN! It was a hell of a ride if we can turn off our skeptical minds for a couple of hours. The production values were excellent. The principle actors and their director did really well with a comic-book script. Swank, Eckart, Tucci were great and their interplay with the others in the crews of the ship and "Houston-on-Surface" were the credible features of the film.
    Think about it this way: had you gone with your kids, they would have loved it! The "zero" reviewers need to lighten up. My 8 year old gave it a "ten" and her pleasure was good enough for me. I give it a borderline pass and a score of 65.
    Expand
  3. Apr 6, 2014
    6
    The characters are a bit arrogant and the USA is "of course" the only country, who can save the world. This movie could be more interesting or have a better atmosphere, which I think is quite important for a space movie. The science isn't so important for me since it's still a science-FICTION-movie. But I unfortunately miss a (deep) meaning to this movie.

    I don't know why people think
    The characters are a bit arrogant and the USA is "of course" the only country, who can save the world. This movie could be more interesting or have a better atmosphere, which I think is quite important for a space movie. The science isn't so important for me since it's still a science-FICTION-movie. But I unfortunately miss a (deep) meaning to this movie.

    I don't know why people think "Armageddon" would be better. Has it more "cool" scenes? Because unlike it, "The Core" has more serious characters, some mysterious scenes and even a more interesting travel. Why should "Armageddon" deserve some Oscar-nominations and "The Core" not even a simple nomination?
    Collapse
  4. Nov 4, 2014
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Core: 5/10: Disaster movies always seem to do better when the disaster is local in scope. A city threatened by avalanche, a tower threatened by an inferno, a Poseidon threatened by an adventure, that kind of thing. Earth killer movies are always a harder road.

    You have your 4 standard horseman of the earth disaster; nuclear war, space invaders, plagues (esp. those that create zombies), and meteors. Lately earth killing movies have gotten creative and lets face it stupid, global warming (The Day after Tomorrow), President George W Bush (Fahrenheit 911) and now The Core with it's well… I'm still not sure what broke.

    The core of the earth stopped spinning (not the earth itself mind you) which is causing the electromagnetic field to dissipate. Okay, that sounds serious. So that would cause what exactly? Apparently the movie wasn't all that sure so we get scenes of some the lamest and implausible disasters ever. Lets put two under the scientific microphone shall we.

    One involves birds going all Hitchcock in London due to their inability to navigate using the magnetic field. Okay that may effect the birds ability to fly south (Oh my god the pigeons they're going east!), but even the Mr. Magoo of the avian world wouldn't start flying into statues and buses.

    In another all too short montage a lightning storm destroys the Roman Coliseum. I'm not sure what is more unlikely, lighting striking relatively short rock structures, or the granite exploding when it does. Lightning, last time I checked, was attracted to metal.

    But what would you expect from a movie that puts a giant windshield in a rock-drilling machine (Made with that magic metal Unobtainium). Keep in mind I've only scratched the surface of the silliness.

    Acting wise Stanley Tucci is a joy, Hillary Swank still kind of looks like a guy, and everyone else is forgettable. The Core is enjoyable in that bad 50's sci-fi kind of way. But they needed more (and more plausible) disasters, and much less well everything else.
    Expand
Metascore
48

Mixed or average reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 32
  2. Negative: 6 out of 32
  1. 63
    So howlingly awful that it has unwittingly found a place in that elite group of films that can claim to be "so bad they're good."
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    More palatable than most pictures of its ilk due to its keen awareness of its own preposterousness, a self-knowledge exuberantly expressed by a mostly live-wire cast.
  3. Elaborate misfire, which misuses an unusually good cast.