|
The Core: Mark's Thoughts
A spectacular set of disasters and a heroic expedition to save
mankind. Some real science and some nonsense mix. If the film does
not quite click, it is probably because we have higher standards than
we had for science fiction films in their heyday of the 1950s and
1960s.
THE
CORE is a disaster film and an expedition film. For those who don't
know, there really is a solid core rotating at the heart of our
planet. That much of the premise of this film is true. In THE CORE
something has robbed the center of its angular momentum.
For a while nobody has noticed anything different. That much is
kind of hard to believe. Then some mysterious phenomena are being
seen. It is hard to believe that there would not be a whole lot
observed a lot sooner, but perhaps the core is slowing to a halt.
Dr. Josh Keyes (played by Aaron Eckhart) sees some strange behavior
in nature and gets nervous. He guesses what is wrong and brings
his ideas to Dr. Conrad Zimsky (Stanley Tucci), a superstar scientist
who has that rare ability to see any discoveries of another scientist
and make them his own. Zimsky is convinced by Keyes's work that
the Earth is doomed. But there is no way to do anything about the
situation.

Then Zimsky remembers that a man from whom he once stole some ideas,
Dr. Edward Brazzelton (Delroy Lindo), may have the technology to
build a mole machine. If it can be built the machine could be used
to travel into the interior of the planet and set off some bombs
to start the core spinning again. The mission is planned. To pilot
the craft come two shuttle astronauts played by Bruce Greenwood
and Hilary Swank.
This is a film that intermixes some good science with some real
balderdash. The science, while applied with large liberties, is
far better than that in its most similar predecessors - films like
1951's UNKNOWN WORLD, 1959's JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH,
or 1965's CRACK IN THE WORLD.
A lesser effort would have not thought beyond using the premise
to show just a lot of earthquake effects. Where this film has class
is the focus on geo-electrical disasters, a possibility that most
of the public has probably never really thought about. And it does
create a set of bizarre and seemingly unrelated phenomena in the
early parts of the film.
The frequently intentionally funny script written by Cooper Layne
and John Rogers and directed by Jon Amiel is a nonstop ride from
a man having an unexplained heart attack in a Boston boardroom (yes,
that is directly caused by a geological event) to the explosive
finale.
The film is 135 minutes long and unlike films like OUTBREAK and
even TITANIC it has not padded the story with human villains. Virtually
every scene in the film is about the geological crisis, which is
threat enough.
There are no gunfights, chases, or martial arts; the film is all
science fiction. There is one chaste screen kiss. On the other hand
the film could have used some good advisors to tidy up even the
non-science.
Every major disaster just coincidentally occurs in a major city.
And I refuse to believe that even after the military knows how dangerous
the situation is there is still only one general assigned to track
a problem that has such global impact.
Visually the film is not all it could be. Many of the spectacular
scenes of destruction have that indescribable flavor of computer
graphics. Similarly when Virgil - the drill machine is named for
the poet - is moving the "windshield" view is always a computer graphic.
The entire craft seems to be done only as a computer graphic. To
hide the graphics somewhat we never really get a good look at Virgil.
It is there on the screen but as a vehicle it is rather nondescript.
Viewers like to savor the contours of crafts like the Nautilus and
the Enterprise, but you never see Virgil well enough to do that.
Admittedly it is hard to imagine really exciting images of a machine
boring through solid rock or magma. If it is completely enshrouded
in opaque material as it would be, most of the time there is nothing
to see.
THE CORE is not a film I have a lot of respect for or learned a
lot from, but as an old CRACK IN THE WORLD fan I was looking forward
to it and I did enjoy it, perhaps for many of the reasons I enjoyed
EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS. I think Paramount expected more from the film
than that it be just good "drive-in movie" fun. I have affection
for the film but rate it 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on
the -4 to +4 scale. Of its kind it is quite good.
Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 2003 Mark R. Leeper
|