Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Leofwine_draca 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.

zee 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.

Brandt Sponseller 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.

Rimmer-10 **** 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.