oneguyrambling
I'm not sure if this was a straight to VHS effort or even a TV movie. But I can say that regardless of intent Crossworlds misses the target and I won't be spending much time talking about it.Basically a misguided attempt at a sci-fi niche market, Crossworlds suggests that there are many dimensions running simultaneously, some are more dangerous than our own, and in these nefarious dimensions persons exist that would do the world harm.Joe (Josh Charles) is unwittingly the key to preventing said guys from achieving their dastardly goal, though as a gormless college student he has no idea that this is the case.Rutger plays AT, a kind of 'other dimensional' swami who is called upon to help Joe and his kinda cute but in a D movie way female helper (put another way: you still want her to get naked but don't care too much when she doesn't), who is there to guide him through like Morpheus would Neo – only in a 657% better movie.Crossworlds is an hour and a half of poorly choreographed fights, sh*tty cut price effects and clumsy and confusing plot developments. They really never explained the dimension jumping thing right, but in fairness I got so bored I let the movie run while I walked around the house cleaning up.Let's just say that it involves some sort of sceptre and Joe's necklace? The only notable other things worth mentioning is the presence of Jack Black (who it seems was playing Jack Black even from the really early days) and a dimension hopping bad guy who could not have been more than five foot two.Rutger Hauer looks like he is sleepwalking even in his good films so it is hard to bag his lacklustre efforts too much when this sad joke is concerned, I just hope he got paid upfront.Final Rating – 3.5 / 10. Crossworlds could only be justified as a lamentable attempt to make Josh Charles famous, or to help kill off the career of Rutger Hauer. Thankfully while it is an atrocious piece of trash it obviously wasn't seen by enough people to do either.
thecursor2002
Honestly, most B-Movies are terrible. The sudden, sad trend among movie fans to purposefully exalt crap films just for a laugh has become a "lowering of the tone" for snobs such as my self. Is Troll 2 unintentionally hilarious? Yeah. Does that mean it's "Brilliant"? No, it sucks and for many B-Movie fans, the line between satire and reality has been blurred. Face it, the joke is over. The vast majority of the B-films or Direct to DVDers are awful and unwatchable.But every now and then, you find a B-movie that has enough heart and soul to transcend that. Every now and then you see a movie that has enough gumption to spit in the eye of their low budget and no big name. Crossworlds is one of those movies, it shows a panache you don't normally find on late night cable and plays the hand it's dealt.The budget is so low you'd expect the sets to be made of duct tape, the plot is a bit out there, and the names of the characters are out right weird and yet...you find yourself realizing that if this had a bigger budget it would be a hit film. If this had some studio support, a slightly tighter story, and better SFX, it would be a modest box office coup.The film is, dare I say it, rather fun and compared to Transformers or Avatar or some other over indulgent crap masquerading as a blockbuster.In a just world, this film would've been a real movie instead of a cult classic but then again, it probably would've have been as good if had been made at a major studio.
Alex Gifford
As a fan of low budget sci-fi (especially Rutger Hauer movies) I have to admit to being biased towards this before I'd even seen it. But, not only did it live up to expectations, it far surpassed them. This is a slick, well directed and acted and fairly intelligent entry into the 'alternate dimension' genre.It's fast paced and the gorgeous Andrea Roth certainly adds to the enjoyment factor. Rutger Hauer is his usual sardonic self, always great value. Josh Charles is excellent in what I think is the best film of his career!! OK, so the budget is low, but the makers have done wonders with what they had to work with and it looks like a much more expensive movie - the cinematography is fantastic and gives the whole movie a lovely 'gloss' look. There is lots of humor, an excellent villain and some very exciting actions scenes - what more could you want? A lot of people compare this to the Matrix, which I feel is unfair. The Matrix is (great fun, but) very overblown and pretentious, whilst this movie plumps solely for entertaining. Some of the themes are the same, but the similarities end there. I'd go for Crossworlds any day!!
CrossworldsThespis
I was very, very anxious to see CrossWorlds. I'm a huge fan of Josh Charles, a huge sci-fi fan and I had seen the trailer from this site, which absolutely blew me away. After looking at my local mall, video store, and two more video stores I finally found a copy. I rushed home and put it in my VCR that night."CrossWorlds" is a good movie. I wouldn't compare it to "Glory" or other Josh Charles classics like "Sports Night" but it's one of those movies that you can come away from feeling like you made a good choice. It's a movie you'll want to watch again, the kind of movie you'd buy just to pull out once in a while. In particular, the acting performances and the abstract way of looking at things made this movie.The plot was a little diffuse - the first time I watched it, I got to about halfway through and then lost my mind. I had to watch a second time to understand it. Josh Charles makes a surprisingly good action hero with his skill and sarcasm; Rutger Hauer makes a fine mentor. Andrea Roth and Stuart Wilson could have been better, the ending could have been better too (way obvious). CrossWorlds leaves a lot of things up to the viewer which is great. It packs cool action and fun. If you want a movie you can enjoy without having to be thrown a moral or emotional appeal, this is it.Just be sure to skip the tedious, unexplained, worthless sequence of the opening credits.
AD
