Crossworlds (1996) User Reviews

Prosaic, insufficiently-budgeted reworking of Heinlein's "Glory Road"

[insightstraight · 6/10 · 29 April 2009]

Other than the obviously older Rutger Hauer as a clue, I was astounded to find that this film was from 1996, it has such an 80s feel. And the uniformly egregious songs had a bad-80s feel as well.

The genesis of this film seems evident: someone wanted to make a film of Heinlein's "Glory Road", discovered the rights to that work were too expensive, and had a lackey write a screenplay with many similarities but which could be filmed in LA and environs.

Rutger Hauer plays it straight and generally classes things up, but the film tends to bog down when he is not around. Andrea Roth is decorative and tries hard, but she is no Empress of the Twenty Universes.

Even for a fantasy work, there are too many inconsistencies and plot conveniences for the film to be enjoyable for me. I am willing to suspend disbelief in order to be entertained, but not to have sloppy plot devices hang disbelief by the neck until dead.

If you want a good cross-dimensional story, go read "Glory Road". Then hope, as I do, that someone who understands the appeal of that story can get their hands on a budget sufficient to do a worthy film version of it.

Poor effects, endless sub-par action, and Rutger Hauer

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 20 May 2016]

Yet another indistinguishable sci-fi thriller from the reliable Rutger Hauer, who once again is the best thing in this film which substitutes oodles of action in place of a real script. This is a shame, because the film's plot is quite an interesting and original one, and they just don't make enough films about alternate realities these days. CROSSWORLDS comes off as an empty, wasted opportunity which could have been like THE MATRIX: an intelligent, science fiction thriller with great action, but instead turns out to be another forgettable B-movie with nothing much to distinguish it from many others.

The cast is probably a big problem in this film; the majority of them are hopeless. Rutger Hauer once again finds himself typecast as an ageing mentor-type bloke who acts as the film's indestructible hero; opposing him is the British villain Stuart Wilson whose ham just doesn't cut it. Josh Charles (a young, untalented Ted Raimi lookalike) acts as the film's audience, finding himself caught up in the unexplained events; his dim-witted, moaning character soon becomes grating, which is a shame because he dominates every scene. If Charles had been a little bit more heroic instead of acting like an idiot all the time, this film might have been easier to bear.

Don't get me started on Andrea Roth's performance of the female lead, either; she's just been put there for the purpose of "eye-candy" and is pretty hopeless. Also appearing is a dwarf sidekick who disintegrates in one of the film's more impressive special effects scenes, while modern cinema goers might get a kick from seeing a pre-fame Jack Black before he went on to bigger (although not necessarily better) things.

The script gives our lead characters ample room for situation comedy, which soon becomes boring. It also centres heavily around action and has only a few major plot points to string along. Many things that happen are left unexplained and are confusing. This film's action is also below-average; endless scenes of suited men running around with Uzis are silly in the extreme and make a mockery of the whole film. Also, due to the PG-13 rating in America, there aren't even any on screen deaths or violence to speak of, only of the bizarre computer-generated variety.

Which leads me to the special effects, which are as cheap and cheerful as you might expect. Some of them appear to have been stolen from the television series SLIDERS. None of them convince for an instant, as they just look like they've been drawn up on a computer, and they're pretty nondescript too; pretty rings appear on screen, people vanish and appear, and only one scene stands out as impressive: two characters falling from a roof turn into "pixels" about halfway down, which then tinkle down onto the pavement. The one impressive action scene, at the very end, when our hero battles the chief villain across a variety of locations, has also been ripped off from SHOCKER. In all, while CROSSWORLDS isn't the worst film ever made, I for one would certainly give it a miss.

Did not age well

[dancurtis-info · 5/10 · 29 July 2021]

Very much a low budget 80's film, but perhaps the film itself time-traveled 10 years into the future, because it was released 1996.

You would be hard pressed to create more 80's legitimacy than this one. I still find it hard to believe. I even checked with wikipedia to make sure it wasn't released opposite War Games or something like that.

Anyway, it didn't age well regardless of when it was released. I'm giving it 5 because Rutger. Otherwise I would give it a 4 max.

Serious talk: Excellent choice for a remake. Given the right cast & director and *budget*, it could be an excellent movie. It's a Heinlein story, so everything you need for an epic is already there.

Sam, Michael, you guys doing anything right now? How about you John? When are you gonna be available?

Luckily for one R. Hauer no-one saw this potential career killer.

[oneguyrambling · 3/10 · 28 December 2011]

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.

Not enough exposition, but admirable low budget film-making

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 24 February 2005]

As explained in a scrolling text prologue, Crossworlds is set in a universe where there are multiple dimensions and travel across dimensions is made possible by a "key" of sorts that unlocks doors between them. The key is powerful, so obviously there are various parties vying for it. As the film proper begins, we see a man head into a cave to retrieve some ancient relic, only to be confronted by sinister looking men. Then we head back to "contemporary" California to meet Joseph Talbot (Josh Charles), your average film world young, partying college student. Soon Joseph encounters Laura (Andrea Roth) who introduces him to dimension-hopping. It seems Joseph has some role to play in the war for the key.

Much has been said about the resemblance between Crossworlds and The Matrix (1999). Although some of the similarities are surely coincidences, many may not be. I suspect there will be no end to discovering source material that was somewhat cribbed by the Wachowski Brothers in the three Matrix films. I know that the more pre-1999 genre films I watch, the more I find material that the Wachowskis unofficially "adapted" for their work.

On the other hand, similarities between Crossworlds and the first Matrix film underscore a point that I like to make about film criticism--I do not agree that originality is a criterion that should be factored into one's rating of a film. That's not to say that I'm advocating plagiarism--far from it. But being strongly influenced by other material, or even "riffing" off of it is not a problem in my opinion. For one, the works we claim are original may turn out to be not so original after all. It's an epistemic problem. Critics are not omniscient, so any work deemed original may turn out, upon future knowledge, to be just as strongly influenced from material we just didn't happen to know about. So what we're really doing if we award points for originality is saying, "I'm not familiar with any material that this film is influenced from, therefore it is better than a film where I am familiar with precursor material". I believe The Matrix is a much better film than Crossworlds. The similar material is handled much better by the Wachowskis.

That's not to say that Crossworlds is bad. It's just average. It has an equal amount of good points and bad points. The principle problem I had with the film was the same problem I had with Constantine (2005)--there is obviously a dense mythology in the writers' minds that forms the basis of the plot, but the audience isn't told enough of the mythology for the film to achieve greatness. You are never quite sure of the "rules" of the Crossworlds universe. As soon as you begin to get your bearings and figure it all out, some new character appears, some new kind of unusual device, action or ability occurs, and we're in the dark again, trying to update our scorecards so that the new material is coherent with the previous material. It saps any potential suspense out of the film. It's a difficult problem for any author who wishes to create alternate worlds, with alternate operational rules. One has to find a balance between too much exposition/explication and not enough. Scripters Raman and Krishna Rao (who also directed) err on the side of not enough.

There are other problems, many of which seem to be related to editing and specifically the fact that Rao probably had to cut a much longer film down to 90 minutes. That may also be part of the reason that needed exposition/explication is missing. Rao might have figured that if he has to lose material, it's best not to lose more action-heavy scenes. Changes in setting, plot and/or character attitude are occasionally too abrupt. For example, Joseph expresses frustration at the dimension-hopping predicament (right after they leave the beach) when it seems that he's barely experienced any of it. This should have been saved for a later scene, and perhaps in the original cut, it did come much further into the film.

But the film also has many assets, not the least of which is Rutger Hauer as A.T. Hauer is like a slightly older version of Lou Diamond Phillips, which means that he's something of a grade B and C genre film king. You know that if Hauer or Phillips is in a film, there's a good chance that it's going to be at least a bit cheesy. For those of us who have a special place in our hearts for cheesy B and C genre films, we also tend to love Hauer and Phillips.

The rest of the cast is a treat, too. Charles is terrific at playing a lost nerd, Jack Black gets to do the schtick that made him famous, Roth is appropriately sly, sexy and a bit mischievous and Stuart Wilson as the villain should have most viewers hating him by the end of the film, which is what he's supposed to do.

And of course the underlying idea is an intriguing one. Visually, Rao does a fantastic job of creating an attractive sci-fi film dealing with multiple worlds on a relatively low budget. Many directors would be afraid even to attempt such a feat, as the budget did not allow for much in the way of special effects. Most locations are our mundane Earth, yet Rao is able to convey an epic adventure through multiple worlds with devices as simple as a red filter and locations as simple as a warehouse or black sound stage.

Crossworlds is definitely worth a view if you're a big fan of this genre. Just be prepared to cut the film some slack in terms of exposition, and keep a scorecard if you have to.

Stereotypical Teenage Boy Flick

[sculptagain-1 · 2/10 · 27 May 2012]

It was as if this regular College Student that just happens to live in an apartment Filled with what is thought to be every college kid's stuff and drives an ancient classic car is going to make a great Sci-Fi. It was as if there was some group of assistants who went to the "College Stereotypical Apartment Hardware Store" and filled this guy's room. Even Mom calling on the answering machine was "stereotypical" with the parking tickets. It is really Lame. Low-Budget or not - trying to make the Every Day Guy in college out of an obvious Super Rich Kid by clouding the story with such crap is offensive. Kid's in College don't live like this. The Party? maybe so. Dancing Babes - most "babes" are every day girls - not "Too Sexy for my Tube Dress" types. Beer cans against the forehead? Way past the 1970s. So it was hard to get past the first few minutes. But I held on - the best I could hoping things would jump into a serious movie rather than a Teenage Boy movie.

After the 'proverbial' duster coat worn by Hauer and the really cute mini-shirt by the babe - the movie finally moves on about 30 minutes into the drawn-out story. It is always amazing to me that all the ingredients to these supernatural legends just happen to be Local - in that the staff and the amulet just happen to be in the same town in good ole USA. But it is a Sci-Fi. 32 Minutes into was the understatement of the entire movie - by the babe: "It will be over soon."

OK...scenario... You get the key to 'whatever.' And you give it back without question to the person you got it from. Then the key gets stolen from that person who has no idea of its value. Who's the fool in this case. Why give the stone/amulet back to the kid when he has no idea what he's up against. This constitutes a major error in the scripting of this film.

Script writing, to me, is even more important than directing. The direction is obvious with a well written script as opposed to visa-versa. When words like "butthole" or "asswipe" are used by the actors, it was surely scripted. And therefore quite Cheap. I don't mean to expect Shakespeare quotes, but as I said = = this is a Teenage Boy Flick. But then "it isn't easy doing business with Morons."

It all turns out that Any college kid with a reasonable desire for cute blondes and a "mom-ma's boy" could have pulled this movie off - in its writing. I don't understand Hauer's desire to go from fame to insignificant so easily. Perhaps he had some outstanding traffic tickets. But Rutger Hauer? In this tripe movie? Amazing.

If Only...

[thecursor2002 · 7/10 · 21 February 2010]

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.

Horrible beyond imagination

[Rimmer-10 · 1/10 · 26 February 2001]

**** SPOILERS AHEAD **** Sometimes I wonder what the drive is for making a movie. In my world there is supposed to me some sort of reason for spending millions of dollars on producing a movie. In the case CROSSWORLDS I am lost. I am not able to grasp why on earth this movie is made. It is so bad so bad.

Most of all because the movie does not even *try* to tell us what is all about. I can deal with movies that *tries* to tell us something very unbelievable. I find THE MATRIX a great movie and I can even appreciate STARGATE because both movies *try* to persuade their viewers to go along with a unbelievable story. In the case with CROSSWORLDS they just blabber around with scepters, warlords, keys, gates and trans-dimensional armies. There is absolutely no meaning in all this and they don't even try to make a meaning of it.

If that wasn't enough there is so many horrible scenes and bad acting in this movie that it would feel like a pleasure to sit through even the worst Jean Claude Van Damme movie. How about:

*1* The army of Ferris that is supposed to have conquered an entire dimension - but where is it????? Nowhere. Apparantly it consists of two handfulls of arab warriors. And they can't even beat a fat Rutger Hauer - I have trouble seeing them and their kind conquer an entire dimension unless that dimension was populated with blind dwarfs with no arms. *2* How is Joe able to fight (and win over) these lame arab warriors shortly after he almost fell unconsious to the ground and was sick to his stomach - caused by transdimensional jetlag (no kidding). How about that for a sudden cure! *3* A.T.s little workshop dissappears suddenly and turns into an ordinary motel room. But when Joe comes back the workshop is there again - he has apparantly done something different. But what is it?? The movie don't even try to explain it. Well I guess the workshop is transdimensional too. *4* Why did Ferris save Laura and Joe when they fall to the ground after he has pushed them of the roof. Instead of killing them? The movie offers no explanation. *5* What is it with these ravens that are scattered around in the movie? The producers offer os no explanation.

And I really could go on - the nonsence just continues in this "movie". The last 10 minutes of the movie are almost unbearable. The acting and the writing and the nonsence reached record depth. I almost cried out "WHY WHY WHY". The movie offers no explanation.

Rating: 1 of 10.

A good B-Grade SciFi/Action Flick

[Mr_Frost · 7/10 · 11 February 2005]

You know, I've never written one of these before, but I felt compelled to do so. I read the plethora of comments by other reviewers saying how confusing the plot was and whatnot -- one even went so far as to ask questions to which clear answers were provided in the film. I've come to the conclusion that this is endemic of the users who typically post reviews to these sorts of things. So, I'm going to include my review here, if for no other reason, so that the record, at least on this one film, can be set straight.

The plot is reasonably simple, however one felt that some compromising occurred on a corporate level within the writing staff/directorial staff of the movie. Someone started out with a really great idea which was subsequently "dumbed down" to make the movie less technical and more accessible to the average (perceived) viewer. In a nutshell, you have your prototypical/archetypal good vs evil construct. In this case it is multi-dimensional, though I must protest loudly over peoples' comparison with "The Matrix". This movie shares far more in common with "Time Bandits" and "Buckaroo Banzai" than it does with "The Matrix".

As one reviewer pointed out, conceptually it seemed as though this movie was intended as a pilot for a continuing television series. You have your Mentor role played admirably by Rutger Hauer (one of my favorite actors). You have your Hero and his potential love interest. You have the war of good vs evil waged across multiple dimensions. You have the Good Queen and the Evil King. Textbook examples of all the above. Where the plot seems to apparently confuse some people was with the rapid shifting between realities, and some minor inconsistencies in character portrayal and the aforementioned (my perception) compromises which were clearly made by the writing staff.

In the end, however, it's really very simple: You have a staff and a crystal. You put the two things together, and you have a key. You take the key and wack something real good with it and it opens a dimensional portal. You jump through the dimensional portal and voilà, new reality (or inter-reality travel, apparently). The reason Rutger Hauer's workshop wasn't there the first time the kid went back was because he hadn't passed behind the palm tree first -- that much, to me anyhow, was crystal clear. A good example of how this movie's mechanics are working would be to review the extensive gaming material (some available on the web) for a Pen & Paper RPG known as "Planescape". (Also a video game version was made called "Planescape: Torment".) A gateway can be anywhere, and the key can be nearly anything. Sometimes a door is really a door, and sometimes it's a wardrobe (thank you C.S. Lewis). Sometimes a key is the key, and sometimes it is hopping on one foot while holding a piece of rye grass between your teeth.

It would have been nice had this movie been actually developed into a series (or at least a miniseries) as it would have fleshed out a lot of what I feel was INTENDED but not carried through very well. As far as the movie goes, in and of itself, I would recommend it. It is a sweet little jaunt into fluffy science fiction starring the First Man of Scifi, Rutger Hauer. He, alone, makes the movie worthwhile in my opinion. Anyone who can sit through "Eating Pattern" (especially as I did the first time, not understanding the paradigm that is Lexx) would enjoy this as well.

Remember: Not all reviewers you might read on IMDb.com are anywhere near qualified to judge a movie, and I suspect quite a few are incapable of dressing themselves without assistance. :) I hope that anyone who takes the time to read my review will give the movie a chance. It's worth it.

ZZZZzzzz...

[Aylmer · 2/10 · 21 August 1999]

Basically an extended episode of the Fox series "Sliders", Crossworlds offers about zero in the way of anything. The entire cast consists of nobodies, with the exception of Rutger Hauer, who quite simply looks terrible and depressed. Little in the way of anything new; a few standard-fare CGI effects, a lot of "Brazil" or "Time Bandits"-esque scene changes, and some of the most poorly done action sequences yet. The film never clearly states what the heck is going on. We're left just as confused as the whiny protagonist. A drawn-out 90 minute time killer, all too typical of low-budget 90's sci-fi.

Immense fun.

[WolfGifford · 8/10 · 4 March 2006]

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!!

Good

[manitobaman81 · 7/10 · 6 September 2014]

I am sure the now-deceased Yugoslavian dictator Marshall Tito would have had no objections to me renaming this movie. Though I do think he himself could have appeared in it. I refuse to totally dismiss this, because I find it quite engaging, in a guilty pleasure sense. I thought this was cute and not bad. All of the fancy characters struggle against a system that has perpetuated falsehoods. It's not the thing to see if you're in the mood for something uplifting, or something with tons of action. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them. Final rating: 7/10.

What am I gonna do with my The Tingler brand Tingler now?

[dick_james · 1/10 · 26 June 2011]

I bought a spankin' used VHS copy of Matinée(Directed by Joe Dante{gremlins,the howling}, Starring John Goodman) and to my ultimate horror, upon thrusting the cassette into my VHS player, I discovered some mouth-breather had recorded over it with this crappy movie. I was appalled. Initially it was entertaining because the tape was damaged, making it speed up and slow down giving it an action feel reminiscent to the scenes in 300, and the scenes with Jack Black made me question whether it was even the same movie in the title sequence, because Rutger Hauer didn't even show his bad haircut until the 7 minute mark, making me think it was some kind of demented chopped and screwed movie mash-up recorded by some inner city pervert with too much time on his hands. But it was just the one crappy movie. You could watch this, or you could flip between an episode of Stargate and Orange County, I recommend the latter.

Fun action sci-fi flick

[suzdal · 25 November 1998]

A small, low budget (but not B-more like an HBO film) Rutger Hauer film. better than I expected it to be, kind of feels like a pilot, since it's set up for sequels but with a heavy introductory feel. Decent leading characters with Rutger Hauer is his weary mentor role. A lot of fun and I will be looking out for the sequel.

silly and unengaging

[grnhair2001 · 2/10 · 31 May 2015]

Or at least I was not engaged. A 13-year-old boy, at which this is aimed, might be more engaged.

You know you're in trouble when a film starts with four paragraphs of text on the screen, being read aloud in VO to you by an actor (just in case you're having a bit of trouble in the reading department yourself, young viewer). The first ten minutes need to be cut; it establishes almost nothing about character of relevance and is missing any sort of likability hook for the hero. ("Not quite as douchy as buddies but lots whinier" really doesn't cut it.) When the action starts, with the most awful brand of fistfights, you're not surprised at the overly loud meat-hammer Foley treatment. When you think it can't get any worse, the dialog references Star Wars. Rule of B film-making: never remind viewers there are better movies than the one they are currently watching!

The idea isn't half-bad. There is more than one dimension, and the Reluctant Hero must join the more experienced fighters, an old guy and a hot chick (dressed for inter-dimensional fighting from a Yonge Street hooker's wardrobe, for some reason. I myself, whenever I want to be prepared for action or am headed to the boxing gym, always put on boots, a micro mini, a tube top, and a leather jacket over all, for that final je ne sais quoi.) There's a scepter (aka didgeridoo) and a necklace involved in opening the gateway between dimensions. All of this might have worked with a competent screenwriter.

But the dialog is awful. The rules of inter-dimensional travel keep changing in ways that undercut tension. The actors do their best, truly they do, but it's all nonsense and I think I saw them each wince at least once.

Still, mostly it was lit, and I could hear the dialog (a mixed blessing, I suppose), and the score was appropriate (though one always had the sense of it trying to uplift the unliftupable) so not one star. But not any good, either.

rutger hauer, josh charles, jack black in basically the original matrix, what more could ya ask for?

[IceSkateUpHill · 7/10 · 9 August 2004]

This movie is not well known and I never heard of it until I saw that it was on T.V. at midnight, since I am normally up channel surfing at midnight I did a search on this movie and it looked interesting.

The movie stars Josh Charles (ports night, S.W.A.T.), Rutger Hauer (Surviving The Game, Nighthawks) and Jack Black (Orange County, The Jackal).

Josh Charles stars as Joe a young man who just hangs out at parties with his buddies and tries to pick up chicks. Joe the meets Laura who gets him involved in a battle against enemies from different universes that his father once fought. Then comes Rutger Hauer as A.T. who assists Joe and Laura in the battle between the Crossworlds.

The writing is fun and a lot like "The Matrix" with the whole alternate universe idea, also there are agents in this movie who come in with their machine guns trying to take out Joe, Laura and A.T.

One of the worst movies ever made.

[Drew-82 · 1/10 · 29 August 1999]

The description of the movie depicts a series of epic battles across the universe. I wanted a refund - there were no battles and for what there was, the word "epic" was certainly an overstatement. I am a fan of B grade sci-fi flicks but this one doesn't even qualify for a B grade.

A Solid 7/10. A Pretty Fun Fantasy Adventure That Is Pure 90's Direct-to-video B-movie Entertainment.

[lukem-52760 · 7/10 · 10 July 2023]

Crossworlds is a pretty fun dimension-hopping fantasy adventure that was obviously made on a low-budget & is very typical 90's direct-to-video style filmmaking.

I love B-movies from the 80's & 90's as that was my era, i was born in the 80's & raised 90's & so i love films from those eras.

Crossworlds is a time-travel type film, it's a fantasy piece mixed with dimension-hopping & a group of fun characters.

Basically a nerd type young man named Joe (Josh Charles) finds out he is special. Joe has a necklace with a magical diamond that is a kind of magic key to open dimensions when it's connected to a magical staff. There's a lot of background & mythology to all this but to be honest it's not very clear or fully explained. I think there's lots more knowledge to this crossworlds story but because the film is a low-budget production I'm guessing the film got cut down to a shorter running time. The whole universe in the film needed to be fleshed out more & explored but of course it was very low budget so for what they actually got on screen is still decent & well done.

Anyway Joe is transported to other worlds by two rebel warriors who are fighting an ongoing battle of good vs evil that's been going for centuries....i think, not everything is fully explained. Crossworlds felt like a low budget Dr. Strange movie, the Marvel film that came out much, much later but there's similarities there. Rutger Hauer was like a Dr. Strange character but actually i preferred Crossworlds in it's simplicity to be honest. Yes there's stuff that should've been explained more but i totally liked the then 1990's vibe it has. There's a certain charm to the film as it feels cheesy, comfortable & harmless really. There's nothing that's too violent & no vile language & no bloody gore, just good old fashioned 90's innocent fantasy fun.

A. T is a good warrior who can handle the magical staff & is an other worldly adventure played perfectly by the legendary Rutger Hauer!!!

I'm a massive Rutger Hauer fan so I'm probably a little bit biased but Rutger is so perfectly suited to this type of fantasy, action sci-fi genre, he was excellent in Blade Runner, Split Second, Wanted: Dead or Alive, Hobo With A Shotgun, Hemoglobin, Armageddon, Blind Fury & many more. Hauer is so fun in his sarcastic & couldn't care less attitude & looks awesome in this like an ancient mystical warrior & is easily the best character & performance in the movie.

Josh Charles is fine as the nerdy fish-outta-water Joe, we also find out he's got connections within his family to these dimension-hopping heroes. But again not enough is properly explained.

The third warrior of the universe is a hot chick called Laura, played by a strong Andrea Roth.

A young Jack Black has a small part as one of Joe's buddies & he's quite funny.

The main villain that wants to own the magical staff & control dimensions is a very typical 90's bad guy but played for fun by a very game Stuart Wilson as Ferris, he's fun everytime he's on screen.

The cinematography is actually well done with it's strong colourful filters & there's some fun action scenes, but definitely not as action-packed as you would think. Crossworlds could've done with a slightly faster pace, a few more action scenes & some more explanation into the mythology of it all. But with that being said the film flows at a very relaxed pace & makes for a nice chill out bit of Escapism. The vibe of the film is very relaxed, i felt no real danger, threat or urgency to the story & it all just flowed with characters & actors doing what's expected by the script. I liked Crossworlds for it's easy-watching, easy going approach to a sci-fi adventure film. Many may find this movie boring or disappointing, some parts are but if just sit back, chill out & pop on crossworlds it may just surprise you how much you actually enjoy it!!! Simply a fun 90's B flick.

The film makes for a relaxing late-night flick.

Crossworlds may not be brilliant but it's definitely not terrible & is a solid 7/10 in my opinion.

Screenplay was written in a bathroom

[jimbird-89346 · 4/10 · 21 February 2024]

I don't know why B movies like this get made with no imagination or exposition. As much as I like seeing Ruther Hauer acting, the dialog has to give us something. We are stumbling through the movie much like Joe, never realizing the potential of the "magic" or what is at stake. If you don't know where the hero comes from or what he is fighting for, it's frustrating.

And considering they jump from one dimension to another and end up in boring desert scenes like the backlot of Burning Man, nothing to dazzle us. The bad guys are suits...boring...the group they're fighting for is vague as is their back story or motivation. Made for twenty somethings that can't figure out what to do and are happy waiting on the couch until a pretty girl in a skirt falls in their lap.

Entertaining and well acted - good, not great

[CrossworldsThespis · 10/10 · 6 January 2001]

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.

Good clean fun!

[MidnightWarrior · 10/10 · 26 December 2005]

This film is certainly a very rare breed of film. The story is very intriguing and has a certain level of mystery and bewilderment to it. If you enjoy seeing movies about different dimensions and different worlds, this is the film to watch.

The cast couldn't have been better selected. There isn't much I can say without giving the film away completely, but I will say that script paired with a competent cast and crew make it enjoyable to watch.

This film is not loaded with violence or intense CGI graphics. The dialog seems nearly perfect at all instances and the characters are easy to relate to. I would have liked to see more of a relationship developed between Josh Charles and the sweet blond honey.

Another regret is that the film makers never left the door open for a sequel, even though this film would be worthy of having one. Go rent it - it will leave you feeling like a million bucks!

Good low budget flick.

[Jonathan Horner · 13 July 2000]

Crossworlds caught my eye when I saw that good old, Bladerunning Rutger Hauer starring in it. So I sat down ready to watch the movie thinking that I was in for another poorly directed B-movie, I was wrong. Crossworlds for a low budget movie is pretty good. Rutger Hauer and the rest of the cast deserve more credit from this movie, it should of been pretty popular.

The story line is a little confusing but if you watch the movie twice over you should be able to get your head round it.

overall quite good but a little confusing.

7/10.

Just my thoughts of the show in general

[wpggizmo · 8/10 · 28 January 2007]

I watched the show and was somewhat amused by it. I read the info on it, saying it was a cross of Matrix and Minority report. But in truth, that is a half truth. It had the feel of Matrix but also a older movie/book called Fahrenheit 451. Between these 2 shows I see the similarities moreso. Minority Report I think is way off in comparison.

But overall I enjoyed the action sequences in Crossworlds. But the plot and storyline could have had more fleshing out. As it is, it was to short in my opinion for what it was worth. It is a good rent movie. And I could see it being expanded upon. Hopefully they can give more to it as a part 2 or even flesh it out with a small TV series.

Brilliant

[Preeko · 13 January 2004]

From the first time i watched this film i thought it was brilliant, quite good effects and a very good storyline. If you havn't seen this film before buy it now on DVD, this film is one to keep you very well entertained.

Rating: Five Stars