Dr. John Robinson (William Hurt) is taking his family into deep space to find a life-supporting planet for the human race. Things on earth are deteriorating, to say the least. Going along with him are his scientist wife Maureen (Mimi Rogers), his brilliant daughter, Judy (Heather Graham) and his equally intelligent children Penny and Will. Needing a good pilot, Dr. Robinson nabs hotshot airman Mark West (Matt LaBlanc) to fly their spaceship. Evil Doctor Smith (Gary Oldman) tries to sabotage the vessel but ends up getting caught on board. Amid the ensuing chaos, the ship goes off course and gets lost. Between battling spider-like creatures and their own killer robot, the Robinsons still hope to reach their destination. Will they? This movie starts off with a bang and ends with a whimper. The problem? Well, it is not the terrific cast. Hurt, Rogers and Oldman are wonderful in their respective roles, while Graham and LaBlanc delight the audience with their wit and charm as the couple who provide the movie's romantic elements. All other cast members are quite fine as well. The production looks nice, too, with great costumes, sets, and special effects. So, that leaves the uneven script. It starts off well, with a quick look at the Robinsons' quest and the plotting of Dr. Smith. There are even some great lines, such as the one Maureen hurls at John and Mark, as they are sparring. "If you guys are done hosing down the deck with testosterone..." had me laughing heartily. But, it all just fizzles somewhere in the middle and ends up being utter nonsense, a plot without a cause. What a shame. Those of us who loved the sixties television series deserved better. If you are partial to any of the cast members, from Hurt to Graham to Oldman, do make time for this film, someday. They are the reason to see this movie, for they are a joy to watch, even in a film as lame as this one.
Add a Review
-
Now, I don't think it was IMDb Top 250 material, not by far but it still should have been up in the "6"s. First let's look at the basic for the movie. Lost in Space was a television show from 1965 that was very low budget. I. Allen had to work from a shoestring and it showed. The show was a "kiddies" show, something that the kids enjoyed while Mom and Dad was able to snicker at the goofiness of it, (but not too loudly or the kids might get mad). Then the show progress into one that centered around three characters, that of Will Robinson, Dr. Smith, and the Robot. Mr. And Mrs. Robinson, Major West, and the girls were just so much window dressing and fodder. This is what the director of the movie, Lost In Space, had to work with. Either he kept as close to the original show as he could or he struck out in a totally different direction, such as what happen when they made Wanted Dead Or Alive for the big screen. It's not high drama, but then neither was the original show. Comparing it to the TV show, I believe that the director keep to the same spirit and I say it's not a bad rendering.
-
TheLittleSongbird26 September 2017Although very fond of the original TV series from the 60s, especially the first season, it is by no means a perfect show and is pretty uneven. It was great and more when at its best (the whole of the first season) but it was near-embarrassing at its worst (the second half of Season 3).
Still it had memorable characters (Dr Smith a genre landmark character), a good cast (Jonathan Harris is unforgettable), an endearing campy charm, a dark seriousness in the first season without forgetting to be fun and inventive stories and monsters that made the most of an at the time unique concept. There are worse TV-to-film translations around than 1998's 'Lost in Space', such as 'My Favourite Martian', 'Dragonball: Evolution', 'The Last Airbender', 'The Dukes of Hazzard' and 'The Avengers' (1998).
'Lost in Space' however is still one of those films that has its moments and a few good qualities, but one where it has great talent on board yet manages to make one question its existence. Before those defending the film arrogantly accuse people of being too stuck in the past and refusing change, actually there is far more to the problem than it being a disappointing adaptation of the show, in fact that's the least of its problems and while not a terrible film on its own terms it's a long way from good (personal opinion of course).
That it has a darker tone than the show, although some critics may disagree, is not the problem necessarily, and actually people would have appreciated the bigger, opened up approach (with technology having advanced a lot since the 60s it was necessary). The first season had a serious, dark tone too (even if fans remembered the campy charm of Season 2 and the over-the-top silliness of Season 3 a little more, judging by the word campy is often thrown around describing the show). The difference was that it didn't take itself too seriously and still managed to be entertaining and inventive. The film version, to me and fans/critics (this is what is meant by this criticism, so contrary to it being a seemingly misleading criticism it's a valid one to me), strips away the fun, loses the charm, takes itself too seriously mostly and has very little imaginative or original about it. It just felt charmless and dreary.
Not without its bright spots. It is stylishly and atmospherically photographed and the Jupiter II setting is very cool and the most imaginative the film gets. Some of the special effects are good if never spectacular. The music score has creepiness and gives 'Lost in Space' some energy. 'Lost in Space' gets off to a promising start and gives one the impression "hey this may not be so bad after all", and there are a few nice adrenaline jolts in the action.
Casting has its high spots. The best of the lot is Gary Oldman, who actually looks like he's having fun and gives a different, darker and more menacing Dr Smith and it actually works (even though wildly different). Matt Le Blanc may have moments where he's a little smug, which is due to him having some of the worst of the dialogue, but he does have a likable charm too and has a few amusing moments. Jack Johnson is neither too cloying or grating and the characterisation of the Robot is spot on.
However, the rest of the cast don't work. William Hurt couldn't have been a blander choice for Professor Robinson, he sleepwalks through his role which cried out actually for the involvement of Bill Mumy. On the other side of the spectrum, Lacey Chabert irritates to a mind-numbing degree and, although the film does try to develop her with particularly those video diaries, she is little more than a stereotypical teen at the end of the day. Mimi Rogers has nothing to do and Heather Graham also grates and has non-existent chemistry with Le Blanc.
While 'Lost in Space' is not a bad-looking film on the whole, there are a lot of cheap-looking costumes and some noticeably poor special effects. Particularly for that interminable Space Monkey (Blarp? who is actually for me far more annoying than Jar Jar Binks) and for Smith's spider form (some of the worst spider effects on any visual media, almost as bad as spiders from low-budget SyFy/Asylum films and the infamously terrible ones in the 'IT' mini-series). Really hated the end credits too, they go well overboard with the nausea-inducing surrealism and the overbearing music and as an epileptic it made me feel uncomfortable.
Despite some intriguing moments and sporadic amusing moments early on, most of the script (especially for the characters played by Le Blanc and Graham and in the third act) is in 'Batman and Robin'-like cornball and cringe territory. Target audience is an issue, being too silly and trying too hard and failing to be cute for adults and with heavy-handed sermonising and family values to appeal properly to younger children, who will also find some of the ideas (like the time travel elements and most of the final third) going over their heads (and no this is coming from somebody who finds children's taste and intelligence for film under-estimated).
The film is far too long and drags to dreary degrees in most of its later stages. Most of the time things are taken too seriously and fun and charm can barely be seen anywhere. Then there is the final act which undoes 'Lost in Space' significantly, where things just get weird, tonally muddled, nonsensical and borderline incoherent, far more so than the second half of Season 3 of the show.
Overall, not THAT bad but very lacking in most departments. 4/10 Bethany Cox -
Eric-62-29 January 2000Frankly, I don't think this movie is as bad as some people make it out to be. I like the early episodes of the original series (particulary the first six), when the show had a more serious tone (and before Jonathan Harris sabotaged it by turning up the comic antics as Dr. Smith) and it's nice to see the film stay closer to that serious tone and not emulate the more campy aspects of the series from its later episodes. The cast is good for the most part and I love the visual FX.
However, once the Jupiter 2 crashes on the planet and we get caught up in the time travel older Will Robinson bit, that's when the movie falls apart completely. And the biggest mistake of all is that the older Will Robinson is not played by original Will Robinson, Bill Mumy, even though he badly wanted to play the part. Having listened to the comments of the director on why he didn't cast Mumy on the DVD, I have to say his explanation doesn't wash. Especially when both he and the scriptwriter concede that the device of using the "older Will Robinson" didn't work on the screen as it did in writing. It never occurs to them that maybe the scene would have worked if this new character sprung on us was someone with a definable connection to the old show. -
Ciao28 November 1998William Hurt and Mimi Rogers are two of the most wooden actors, as is only too apparent in this film. The script, plot, dialogue were all awful -- silly and contrived. The effects were okay, except for that amazingly phony monkey thing. Worst of all, there was no sense that anyone was enjoying themselves in making this movie. They could have gone over the top, had some fun with the idea of re-making what was a pretty cheesy show in its original form, but they were all stone-faced and serious. I can't believe 80 million was spent on this tripe. I bemoan the current trend of movies that use expensive, intricate special effects with no good writing to back it up. The whole industry is cheapened. There are too many technicians and too few artists working in (mainstream) Hollywood, it seems...please, save those two hours of your life and do something worthwhile! Time is spinning away even while you read this! Get off the web! Go outside! Breathe the air! Bite the ass of life! And don't watch this movie!
-
g-bodyl12 November 2008I don't think Lost in Space was a bad movie. Is it a movie to be honored the all-time best? No, it's not. There are flaws in this movie, but I don't care too much. The movie is about a family, the Robinsons trying to go to the other habitable planet in the galaxy. They do all right until the villain, Spider Smith tries to kill the family and he ruins the navigational system. Now the Robinsons are lost. The acting is OK. Some of the actors did a great job such as Matt LeBlanc and Gary Oldman. The rest did OK. The special effects are not as good as movies from the time period such as Armageddon or Godzilla. The effects are good, though. I was disappointed in the writing. Akiva Goldsman is a respected writer with talent. For a bad script, all the actors did a good job. The music is pretty good. I liked the electronic soundtrack. I give this movie a 7/10 because I liked the space scenery, the gadgets, and the action.
-
This remake of the successful '60's television show really is a waste of some good potential. It by no means is an horrible movie but the script isn't really interesting or spectacular and the character treatment is quite poor.
In a way this movie is a mixed bag. On the one hand it has some good actors in it and some of the special effects are really good but than again on the other hand the story is pretty shallow, the costumes are embarrassingly dreadful and some of the special effects are below average at best. Sounds weird, a movie that has both good and bad special effects in it. It's a bit weird, it's like they spend most of the time on the big special effects shots and after that they raffled the rest of the special effects. At times the movie is impressive to watch and at other moments it's just laughable bad to look at. Such as the CG character Blarp. He (or she?) looked absolutely dreadful and it made the movie even more ridiculous and bad to watch. But perhaps worst thing about the entire character is that it's a totally, completely unnecessary one that doesn't add anything to the story at all.
The movie has a solid cast. John Hurt certainly adds some believability to the silly moments in the movie and he deliverers some of the bad dialog good and even credible. Gary Oldman is of course also a great actor but he plays a bit of an uninteresting villain in this movie that doesn't get enough opportunity to shine. Matt LeBlanc is most of the time convincing in his role but he at times deliver some cheesy dialog which doesn't always make him believable as a tough space pilot. Mimi Rogers and Heather Graham also walk around in the movie but they get very little interesting to do. Good in her role was also Lacey Chabert. She's a good young actress, never really understood why she didn't appeared in more mainstream big Hollywood productions. She's an actress with great potential but somehow Hollywood never really picked this up. Maybe it has something to do with the failure of this movie?
Because yes, this movie is a bit of a failure. Not only in terms of how well it did at the box office and how well it was received by the crowd and critics but also certainly in terms of how the movie is constructed. The script is just disappointingly shallow and has some totally unlikely and unbelievable events in it, that at times don't even make sense. The story also uses too many elements from the first Star Wars trilogy and even a little bit from "2001: A Space Odyssey". It doesn't only uses story elements from that movies, it also rips off the looks of some of the spaceships, planets and city skylights. No, "Lost in Space" certainly isn't the most original science-fiction movie ever made.
The movie also lacks some good tension and action sequences. There are too many slow moments in the movie in which totally nothing happens. It's OK to have some slower moments in a movie but only when the script and characters are good and interesting enough to carry those slower moments. In this movie that really isn't the case.
This movie is not a complete disaster and the 4.6 rating here at the moment might be a bit too harsh. The movie does provide some good and entertaining moments. But if only the movie had a better and more original script, than this movie perhaps would had been a bigger success and certainly a better one to watch.
5/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/ -
neil-47615 March 2011When Hollywood turns to the TV Mine to see what it can dig up, the general rule is to try to do something which recaptures the essence of the TV original, albeit tweaked in some sort of fashion so as to bring it up to date. But sometimes there is an attempt to give a twist to the original - to dress it in clothes which are not so much new as entirely different. And so we have Starsky and Hutch as a comedy, Bewitched actually featuring a TV remake of the original but with a real witch, and so on.
Lost In Space has, thankfully, forgone the overriding two-set (one interior, one exterior) studio-bound obviousness of its TV progenitor. It has also lost Robbie the Robot (his update is a lot less sympathetic than the original), and weaselly serial complainer Dr Zachary Smith. Much as I enjoyed Jonathan Harris' portrayal, it was essentially a comedy role, albeit with the capacity for introducing the element of dramatic tension in a serial drama which was so resolutely formulaic.
Gary Oldman's Dr Smith is an entirely different animal. The TV Smith was irksome, a nuisance, and could cause some damage. The movie Smith is dark, dangerous, and potentially fatal.
There are plot elements introduced which are fun and, in some respects, original. Most of the visuals are excellent (although I found the cute but hugely unconvincing CGI critter irritating). Most of the cast are good (with some interesting dynamics between the characters), although I found Lacey Chabert's squeaky pre-teen even more irritating than the CGI thingie.
On the whole, there is quite a lot here for science fiction space opera fans to like. -
ReggieSantori21 February 2004I just saw the 1998 LOST IN SPACE and I still haven't recovered. How could they possibly have made a movie this bad? Two actual good actors, Gary Oldman and William Hurt, are trapped in this atrociously written, badly directed waste of $80 million. Whether or not you liked the cheesy 60s TV series, you're going to hate this.
Alright, this is how it goes: it's the future and there's pollution, world peace (ugh!), and terrorists. The Robinson family is going to fly through a "hyper-space-portal" (or whatever the hell they call it) to a planet on the other side of the galaxy to colonize it and save humanity. Hurt, playing a respected scientist with no time for his kids, says at a press conference "there's a lot of space out there to get lost in" (ugh!). Matt LeBanc from "Friends" is horribly miscast as the flying ace who will pilot the Robinson's earth-saving space ship. Then we come to the children... but we wish we hadn't. The little boy is a science-fair genius who wishes his dad had more time for him and the girl is a teenage stereotype who argues with her mother and keeps a video diary. They both have very high, annoying voices, and the lines they deliver are terrible on top of that. Then comes the mother. I don't know who played her, and I don't want to know. They all live in a futuristic house in a futuristic CGI geodesic dome (ugh!). Except for family tensions "I don't want to give up the next ten years of my life", the mission appears to be a shoe-in.
Then we meet Gary Oldman, the 1998 version of Dr. Smith. He would have been a terrific character if his lines weren't so terrible (I think Akiva Goldsman was trying for Shakespearian). Anyway, he's evil and loves it, and works for the terrorists. He sabotages to mission, getting himself trapped on the ship in the process, and getting the Robinsons lost you know where.
Along the way we see thoroughly unconvincing CGI used for just about everything, including an annoying monkey-creature that's supposed to be cute. The costumes (which director Hopkins had a hand in designing) are really terrible glossy-body-mold stuff (think BATMAN AND ROBIN for comparison) which basically gives everybody (even the kids) well defined ahem!- features. Even the music is bad, and horribly arranged. And the end titles go above and beyond tacky, being half music-video, including a rapped-over version of the original theme and sound-bites from the film. And then there's the robot, which the son makes friends with and teaches that it has a "heart" (ugh!).
The script and direction are still probably the worst atrocities in LOSTIN SPACE. One of the more embarrassing bits has LeBlanc explaining to Heather Graham (to whom he is pathetically attracted) the concept of constellations and draws Porky Pig on a window. Even during intimate dialogue scenes, none of our actors seem sincere, or even to be speaking to one another. These characters don't even talk like human beings.
It's hard to believe the studio didn't just put this one on the shelf and leave it there. In the end LOST IN SPACE didn't even make enough money to justify its release. The world really would be a better place without this movie. -
moatsartportrait1 September 2007The story isn't that bad, some of the scenes are really good. Totally different than the original Lost in Space.
The casting of the characters is my only complaint. The children were excellent but the adults were not. William Hurt and Matthew LeBouf do not fit well together. Mr Smith was the only adult character that was believable. Still, it kept my interest and I enjoyed the story very much.
Too bad the casting couldn't have been better because this was actually a very good movie and could have had the possibility for sequels.
I give it a 7 of 10. -
abadger23 October 1998There's one obvious thing about "Lost in Space" -- nobody believed in it. Not the actors, most of whom have trouble delivering their idiotic lines (even the brilliant Gary Oldman seems at a loss); certainly not the "creative" personnel, who left the sets, costumes, and film editing as much a hastily cobbled mess as the script; and, sadly, not the special effects engineers. What should be a SFX extravaganza turns dull and lifeless when the computer-generated effects are this bad -- and there should be no mercy whatever for the creators of that phony CGI monkey-thing, named "Burp" or something similar, obviously inserted in the film to allow Marketing to have a plush doll. If there's any consolation to sitting through this refuse, it's the certainty that there will be no sequel; there will be no "Burp" doll; the figurines that were made will be in clearance bins by now; and "Lost in Space" will irrevokably harm the careers of all involved. More comfort than you'll get from "Independance Day"...
-
MitchellXL51 September 2007Actually, I was quite surprised at how much fun I thought this movie was. Hardly perfect by any measure and, sure, there were some elements that were intrusive, but I found it to be quite faithful to the TV show - it used plots and elements from the early episodes. Even with the newer designs, they incorporated older aspects - the planet REALLY looked like a better version of one of their old sets.
Furthermore, Oldman managed to peg Dr. Smith perfectly, taking in all the old camp elements and putting them to very good use - even using some old catch phrases in different ways.
As diversionary, light sci-fi adventure goes, I thought this was great and I'm usually very picky about this kind of thing. It was fun and a pretty good kids' movie.
The only thing really missing was Billy Mumy. -
bobnoureldein28 December 2021Well, if the movie is good then I would rate it, this one is a good movie, the story is not long but it was decent, well the acting was not so great, but in the end you get a decent movie in the end, probably this movie is for teens, so older people would rate it less.
-
SnoopyStyle15 December 2014It's the year 2058. The United Global Space Force is building a Hypergate to travel to another planet. Wars have left the Earth almost uninhabitable. Major Don West (Matt LeBlanc) is a fighter pilot protecting the Hypergate from a terrorist group called the Global Sedition. The Robinson family (William Hurt, Mimi Rogers, Heather Graham, Lacey Chabert, Jack Johnson) are traveling to Alpha Prime to build a Hypergate on the other side. Major West is brought in to fly the spaceship. Dr. Zachary Smith (Gary Oldman) is paid by the Sedition to sabotage the spaceship but is doublecross and left stunned on board the ship.
There are many things that don't make sense. Why send a family? The spaceship is horribly unaerodynamic which makes launching it like that really stupid. It's trying to adapt a campy 60s sci-fi TV show to be a gritty futuristic space action thriller. It loses everything from the original without gaining much in return. Matt LeBlanc to trying to do Joey by hitting on Heather Graham while her father is right next to them. LeBlanc's character insists on making jokes. Then the movie keeps taking dark turns. Just when things seem to settle down to a good thriller, they throw in a CG space monkey. Jar Jar Binks anyone? If Earth sent another ship, why not go to Alpha Prime themselves? In fact, why would the Robinsons run into that ship in all of space? So many questions, so few answers. -
I liked the movie, but I fear it suffered from the same disease that Star Trek The Motion Picture suffered from - too grandiose a concept, too grand an undertaking, too big an effects budget and enough plot for several movies. Lets see, we have the dysfunctional family becomes functional plot, we have the evil traitor in the med lab plot, the time travel plot, the metallic spider plot, the sexual tension between Dr. Judy and Major Don plot. This puppy had more subplots than a season of X-Files.
It was great to see Mark Goddard in a role with some meat on it. However Angela Cartwright and Marta Kristen were given extremely short shrift. And Bill Mumy and Jonathan Harris should have been involved. I know Jonathan Harris doesn't do cameos, but dammit, find him a role! And as for not getting Bill Mumy to play future Will Robinson - as far as I'm concerned, that singlehandedly reduced this flick from a great movie merely a good one. If they had enough money for the hideous yellow excuse for merchandising (how blatant can you get?), they sure had enough to hire the full original cast. -
joragui324 January 2020The acting...awful. The story line....cannot be more dumb. Special effects, what could at least save something from the film...BAD BAD BAD. I stopped counting how much plastic they used on this movie. The voice of the robot...ridiculous
My advise. Don't waste your time just like I just did. -
joshi_359211 September 2009I cant say it was a bad movie, but it wasn't an excellent movie either. It was an averagely entertaining movie, good idea for a remake film, but it kind of collapsed into itself. They had to many little story arcs that was never finished or continued. Yet some of them suddenly popped up at the end of the film and created very interesting and unpredictable events. And this I think saved the movie, it had a good closure on it's early main theme (if you have seen the movie you know what I'm talking about).
Basically the movie is about a family (the Robinsons) that is sent on a mission to create a "beacon" of sorts on another life supporting planet (it far away but still the closest on to earth) so that earth can use its hyperdrive travelling to save earths resources. The problem is hyperdrive is completely random unless someone is sending a signal from the final destination. So the family and they're pilot is send on a ten year sleep journey. Only problem is a saboteur cases the ship to shift its trajectory towards the sun, and they're only escape is to use the hyperdrive, which of course sends them to a random place in the galaxy.
The cast was OK. Matt Leblanc reminded me bit of a military version of Joey (his most know role in Friends) but it worked out well I think. Gary Oldman as the typical evil bad guy was also pretty OK. The rest of the family wasn't that special, but it wasn't bad either. but I didn't quite catch the point of the "space monkey" thingy (again you know if you've seen the film) But I think it was an entertaining film, far from the best Sci-Fi film I've seen, but not bad at all. 6/10. -
Locdog0713 December 1998Perhaps the only reason I went to see this movie was the fact that it was rumored to have amazing special effects. Sure, that's true. But the rest of the movie was awful.
Matt LeBlanc proves once again that he cannot play any part other than Joey from Friends well. He acts out his character with extreme stupidity, and when he tries to look like he's thinking or doing something intellectual, he merely squints his eyes.
A lot of the things that happens in the movie have no point. For example, on the ship they come across, they find a small yellow alien creature. It's cute, yeah, but it doesn't do anything! It sticks around for the rest of the movie just sitting there and making dumb noises.
The greatest problem was that they spent far too much time on the special effects and less time on finding good actors or good plot. The ending is perhaps the most awful ending I've seen, and the whole movie was overall a big disappointment. If you do see this movie, make sure you're not actually paying to see it. -
spookyrat122 April 2019I'm a little surprised this wasn't more successful than it was. I think it was a timely reboot, which had a good cast and a generous budget and was clearly designed to be the start-up for a series of sequels, which just never eventuated, as the film would have barely made a profit, if any.
Lost in Space was aimed at the family market, but wisely didn't fall into the trap, the TV series eventually did, by focusing 90% of the stories on Will, a comical, rather than villainous, Dr Smith and the robot. Onscreen time is pretty much evenly distributed amongst the characters, with Lacey Chabert's Penny, probably copping the least time and the least interesting storyline. I do think we could have done without the stereotypical family dysfunctions sub-plot too. It really doesn't make sense that the United Global Space Force (UGSF) would send up a family who couldn't be relied upon to work together harmoniously. I also would have personally liked to have seen more of Maureen, but the Matt LeBlanc/Heather Graham pairing was terrific, with the romantic chemistry between Don and a very smart, feisty Judy being a highlight of the film.
I'm always one for a good time travel story and personally didn't mind the one presented here. At the same time however, I think this may have been a reason the film wasn't a huge success. It just does seem incredibly unlikely that after being thrown off course, in the vastness of space the Jupiter 2 would encounter a vessel from Earth from a later time and then afterwards a couple of older members of their crew. Convenient yes, readily believable? Probably not. Still the screen writer was the very experienced and highly regarded Akiva Goldman, so go figure.
However I liked the special effects, especially those relating to the Jupiter 2 and the robot. They paid homages to the originals, whilst significantly updating them. Australian director Stephen Hopkins whose work on this project was pretty thorough in my estimations, has never had a really big hit. I'd liked to have seen him enjoy bigger audiences for Lost in Space, because I would have loved seeing into what uncharted territories a follow-up tale might have taken us. -
BA_Harrison24 January 2019Friends star Matt LeBlanc started and ended his career as a leading man in big budget summer blockbusters with this overblown family-oriented sci-fi from director Stephen Hopkins, whose 'almost Hollywood major-league' status also took a severe battering. Working from a charmless script, Hopkins delivers a loud, chaotic mess of a movie that no amount of expensive special effects can hope to save.
LeBlanc plays war hero Major Don West, who is given the job of setting the Jupiter 2 spacecraft on its course to Alpha Prime, where the other crew members, the Robinson family, are to prepare the planet for colonisation. Having successfully piloted the craft into space, West joins the Robinsons in cryogenic sleep, unaware that terrorist and unwilling stowaway Dr. Zachary Smith (Gary Oldman) has programmed the ship's robot to sabotage the mission.
As well as LeBlanc's less than stellar performance, and a horribly hammy turn from Oldman, we get a pre-sexy Lacy Chabert as shrill teenager Penny Robinson, a post-sexy Mimi Rogers as the mother, mid-sexy Heather Graham as older daughter Judy, Jack Johnson as irritating child genius Will Robinson, and a miscast William Hurt as leader of the family, Professor John Robinson. Even with two future Oscar winners on board (Hurt and Oldman) this adventure for the passengers of the Jupiter 2 is destined to crash and burn, the muddled script resorting to hackneyed sci-fi claptrap such as time travel to try and dig itself out of a (black) hole.
Perhaps the worst thing about the whole sorry affair are the lame CGI creatures: cute alien Blawp, blatantly designed to sell Lost In Space merchandising to the kids; crappy, supposedly scary space spiders that attack our heroes; and a mutant arachnoid Gary Oldman that looked really bad even when the film was first released, and which looks positively awful by today's standards.
The best thing about the film is its theme music by Apollo 440: not only is it a great track, but it heralds the closing credits and an end to this farrago.
3/10. -
I have always enjoyed this fun sci-fi adventure & i saw it at the cinema way back in the 90's & i had the Awesome action figure of Major. Don West, my favourite character in the movie, he came with his cool gun & battle helmet & a space spider, it was so cool!!! Anyway i think This very 90's big budget summer blockbuster is perfect adventure entertainment & is pretty much exactly what the "Summer Blockbuster" is all about.
The computer effects are pretty bad now but hey it's a product of it's time & gives it it's 90's charm!!! Matt LeBlanc is Awesome in his only ever real lead hero role, here he plays handsome & cocky all American battle pilot Major. Don West & hes great, funny & charming, makes me wonder why his Career didn't take off? He will always be remembered for his role as Joey Tribbiani from the t.v show "Friends" but it's a shame because he's great in his lead action hero role here & his bit where he's battle armoured-up with his laser gun shooting, as he's running while hundreds of space spiders are chasing him through an abandoned old space ship is the most exciting sequence in the whole movie.
"Lost in Space" has a good ensemble cast with Gary Oldman, Heather Graham, Lacey Chabert, William Hurt, Jack Johnson & Mimi Rogers rounding out the "Robinson" family, except Gary Oldman who plays the villain aboard their ship, Dr. Smith. All perform fine but Matt LeBlanc steals the show in every scene. Apart from the now tacky looking c.g.i (especially the space monkey) everything else is excellent from high production design & a solid sense of Adventure in it's great music score, it's directed fine by the underrated Stephen Hopkins, who I'm a fan of for his excellent "Predator 2" & his Brilliant "Judgment Night" both underrated 90's Cult Classic films.
We all know the story of the Robinson family that gets "Lost in Space" & it's a great set-up for a thrilling sci-fi adventure that is fairly harmless in it's pure 90's charming way, it's got funny moments & plenty of cool action scenes, it's a great piece of fun entertainment & i just love it.
A really well made & just enjoyable watching experience & the type of film that is so re-watchable, awww Nostalgia & a very cool Matt LeBlanc -
MrFinch22 October 1998The phrases "harmless fun", "a trashy good time", or "mindless entertainment" take on an insidious new meaning when applied to movies like this. I know the movie isn't evil or mean-spirited, but does that mean it has to be so damn awful? I tried to find something in the movie that wasn't a cliche; I failed. The cast turns in nearly uniformly wooden line readings as they trot through the paces of the plot. Not making any sense? Well hell, says the movie, just throw in some loud sound effects, lousy computer graphics, a couple of jokey one-liners that would be below the cheesiest nightclub comic and goose up the action regardless of how improbable it becomes. Even though based on an old campy TV show, this could have been an entertaining movie. The total lack of imagination at work, however, has sucked any chance of fun right out of the experience. Truly redundant, truly awful.
-
markcasa-6362418 May 2018I can't believe it, I for someone who has only seen the review of this movie on Nostalgia critic, and 4 episodes of the amazing Netflix show that just came out. I never saw the show form the 60's but I heard the show was just very weird. But going into this movie I just thought I was going to hate this movie throwout most of it, and yeah the first 10 to 15 minutes were pretty bad.
There is a over long action scene, with so ok effects for the time, put then theres some dumb scenes with Will and his teacher. And Penny's annoying voice that sound like Peridot from Steven Universe, that made me want to rip my ears out. Gary Oldman playing the villain and being other hammy. But after that things actually get better.
The acting for the most part though is not that terrible, and isn't actually cringe after they get into space. But then there is the CGI. I know for a long time that this movie has some really bad special effects, I know for the time they looked ok but on elf them is this monkey named Blarp, and he too me still looks really bad and is considered one of the worst special effect ever made.
The last 30 minuets is a bit different. In my opinion I would just say it would be a better movie. Also the fight between spider smith and the dad character could've been better. Honestly I wish this movie got a sequel but I think it was good on its own.
I can't wait to finish the first season of the netflix show and I give this movie a 8 out of 10. -
toonice4u1016 August 2006Wasn't the best movie, but I quite enjoyed it. The effects were OK, and the acting was better than average. I thought Matt LeBlanc did a good job as Major West, so not like his other alter-ego "joey" I liked the movie because it was different. It was a remake of a television series and they director, writers, etc tried not going to far from what the series was based on. the family flies to space, the trip gets misdirected, they get lost, they have to find their way home. If I'm not mistaken, the voice of the robot sounded like the same one from the series, unless I'm hearing things.
It would be nice if humanity could work on something like that now, so in the future we're not scrambling around trying to find another planet with sufficient resources to sustain life. -
This movie is a monument to its own inanity. The Earth is dying, we have 20 years until the world cannot support human life. Resources are dangerously low, so what do the big brains do? Build a HUGE ship on earth to launch a little ship into space in the most inefficient manner possible. They should have built the little Jupiter 2 on that big space station. They send 1 family and a robot to build a hyperspace gate at the new world (keep in mind it is taking a LOT of resources and manpower to build the earth-based gate, there is no mention as to HOW the Robinsons are supposed to build the second gate. Upon arriving at Alpha prime they will need to build electronic factories, farms, mining operations and a space program to launch all the stuff they will need from Alpha prime into orbit around alpha prime so the family can build a gate to match the one back on earth. That should only take ... oh 150 years or so... HELLOOOOOOOOO? From this poorly planned last ditch effort we move along to getting "lost in space" and pretty much abandoning the human race to die, which the human race deserves if the people in charge actually expected this plan to work...