Critical response It was ranked number 44 in a
Rotten Tomatoes editorial on the 100 worst movies of all time. Audiences polled by
CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale.
The Seattle Times Jeff Shannon saw the film's "blatantly formulaic" parts throughout the runtime with its "rudimentary filmmaking, predictable plot elements, amateur acting" and broad conclusion, but commended Whitmore for utilizing his limited resources to create a project that grows on you past the first five minutes, saying that "
Crossover has a built-in audience that won't be disappointed, especially if you go in with low expectations." Gregory Kirschling from
Entertainment Weekly gave the film a "C−" grade, saying "
Crossover skimps on court-level pyrotechnics (we get a game in the beginning and, of course, a big game at the end, and that's about it) in favor of dry urban melodrama." Despite giving credit to the rapport between Mackie and Jonathan's characters and Brady's role as the antagonistic sports agent, Tom Meek of
The Phoenix was critical of the movie being a "flimsy cut-out of
Ron Shelton's ''
White Men Can't Jump by way of Hoop Dreams''" due in part to hackneyed plot devices, "low production values" and Whitmore's "stilted direction", resulting in a streetball tale being filled with "hip-hop flash and contrivance." Scott Tobias of
The A.V. Club criticized Whitmore's "amateurish" production for constructing a faux Detroit locale that strands the cast with delivering awkward scenes and failing to say anything new about street basketball that ''White Men Can't Jump
already told before, saying that "Crossover'' doesn't have the competence to make it exciting or the desire to explore what's really at stake for these players."
USA Todays
Claudia Puig felt the lack of "gripping, adrenaline-fueled" streetball scenes was the movie's downfall, saying "Nothing feels very underground or edgy about this urban melodrama, which bogs down in a clichéd story and leaden dialogue."
The Austin Chronicles Marjorie Baumgarten found the film's characters and story elements "predictable and heavy-handed", and the basketball action lackluster to engage viewers, concluding that "Whitmore tries out all sorts of zappy camera edits, yet when it comes to filming a basketball game, he shoots mainly air balls.
Crossover tries hard but never makes the leap." Nick Schager of
Slant Magazine heavily lambasted Whitmore for taking the style over substance approach when ineptly directing both his basketball and dramatic scenes, and his script for telling a hypocritical moral lesson about "pro-education and anti-athletic glory", calling it "a pathetic imitation of an emotionally engaging, professionally made movie."
Desson Thomson of
The Washington Post said the film could've been "a
truly terrible movie to savor for the ages", highlighting Whitmore's filmmaking style of "frenetically edited montages with de rigueur hip-hop" in the bookend court scenes, overly saccharine moments being accompanied by "lachrymose saxophone riffs", and the one-note cast delivering laughable dialogue but felt it maintained its position of "middle-of-the-road badness", concluding that "[I]t's simply too dull and meandering to merit impassioned disdain. It just sits there, warming the bench and only dreaming of the dubious big time. Even as a howler of a movie, it doesn't have game."
Box office The film also did poorly at the box office, earning roughly
US$3.7 million on opening weekend, grossing just over $7 million by the end of its short-lived 29 days in theaters – though its budget of only $5.8 million, plus associated marketing and theater expenses, may have minimized net losses. ==See also==