Although 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

I do feel kind of bad for knowing very little about the TV show this was based on. When I first heard the title "Lost In Space" I thought it would be about the characters from "Lost" going into space. What? Everyone goes into space nowadays. Anyway, all I really knew was about Dr. Smith and a robot that kept saying, "Danger, Will Robinson!". This movie features a family going into space but uh, getting lost. There's this one weird creature they call Blarp who does virtually nothing throughout the entire movie. I honestly have no idea why this character exists. I actually do kind of like the reveal at the end.We see a future version of Dr. Smith who's actually pretty well designed. Of course, he looks ugly when he's entirely CGI. This movie was also just too long. I saw the longest version at 2 hours and 10 minutes. I guess the acting isn't that bad and some of the action scenes are kind of interesting, but it's mostly pointless. It's actually sad that there were intentions to make a lot more movies in this series as this one ends on an obvious cliffhanger. Honestly, they might have improved in sequels. **

This movie is downright awful. The special effects looks like a video game, even worse than most Syfy channel movies. Matt Leblanc was terribly miscast, he was laughable as Don West. The acting of many of the supporting actors was sub par for a fairly big budget movie with some pretty big name actors. Will Robinson's acting was either particularly bad or just unrealistic. There was no fear or sense of urgency present at all in him as he decommissioned the robot and saved his family and the space ship, as if he were just strolling in the park. I understand he is just a child actor but there are child actors that could have conveyed a sense of urgency there that would have been more fitting to what was happening (his entire family was seconds away from being slaughtered and he himself had just dodged death dealing rays from the robot). Maybe it was just really bad directing that caused him to act that way, but the end result is just another bad scene in a long line of bad scenes. I was being generous giving this 2 stars.

I must start this review with an important note. I was born in the late 80's and very much grew up a typical 90's/2000's child. I grew up on Sega Genesis and Nintendo 64. I was a die-hard Nickelodeon cartoon fan and spent my weekends watching VHS tapes I rented from Video King. I was blown away the first time I saw a DVD player and still think the biggest crime against humanity was Sony rebooting the "Spider-Man" franchise instead of making a fourth film with the original cast.What I'm trying to say is... I was never a huge fan of the original "Lost in Space" television series. It was before my time, and despite seeing the odd, random repeat on Nick at Night or TV Land, my knowledge of the series was loose at best. And that's still very much the case to this day, because while I have adored revisiting many classic series of old... "Lost in Space" the series never really appealed to me.So I won't be going into this review with any pre-conceived notions of what the film should have been, nor will I draw comparisons and contrasts between this film and the series.1998's "Lost in Space", a loose adaptation of the classic Sci-Fi series, is one of those odd little relics of the mid-to-late 90's. Notable for it's use (perhaps over-use) of early-ish CGI generated visuals, quirky storytelling that ranges from fascinating to irritatingly cliché, and a cast of wonderful performers who come across as a bit lost on-screen... this is a strange bit of pop-culture history from a strange era of film.Is it good? No, definitely not.Is it as bad as many make it out to be? Again, definitely not.My 10-year-old self definitely enjoyed the heck out of it when I saw it on the big-screen, and even now looking back, I think it has a great deal of dumb-fun entertainment value. It's a film I think children under the age of 13 could still get a kick out of, as will adults who saw it as children and are revisiting it for nostalgia. But I definitely wouldn't recommend it to most adults who are unfamiliar with it. If you aren't in the exact right mindset, it will likely come across as little more than brainless, dated entertainment.The film of course follows the Robinson family, who are taking part in a daring mission to save humanity in the near future. With the Earth slowly dying due to the effects of pollution, they are set to take off on a multi-year excursion to begin a process to colonize an Earth-Like planet ("Alpha Prime") and complete a "hypergate" that will allow other humans to instantly "leap" to Alpha Prime. However, a terrorist group has sabotaged their ship- the Jupiter 2- and the Robinsons become lost in the deep voids of space, along with stowaway Dr. Smith. (Gary Oldman.)The highlights of the film are definitely the performances by Oldman as a slimy stowaway with ties to the terrorists, and a possibly-miscast- but-still-quite-fun Matt LeBlanc as Major Don West, a dashing pilot who becomes the sort-of surrogate action-hero as he helps the Robinsons on the journey. A lot of people have spoken negatively on LeBlanc's performance, and the character does have its flaws, but I think this is more the issue of inconsistent writing than LeBlanc's acting. When he's allowed to shine in key action-sequences, LeBlanc is very likable. And of course Oldman is a joy as the nefarious Smith.The film also has a lot of fun moments, including some great effects and action-beats that are a lot of fun, despite being obviously dated now nearly 20 years later. In particular is a great sequence involving mutant spiders and a close call as the Jupiter 2 must escape the vicinity of a massive exploding spaceship.However, this is definitely an incredibly flawed film, and it comes down to the storyline's growing convolution as the film progresses, and it's sappy character development. While I won't give anything away, Akiva Goldsman's script starts out with a bang and is good, episodic fun for it's first 2 acts, before derailing in the final 30 minutes with twists and turns that come out of the left field entirely and feel contrived and pointless. The squeaky- clean, "cutesy" character beats also grow tiresome later in the film, including the almost cringe-worthy relationship between the Robinson's young son and his robot companion. (When the boy tries to make his robotic "friend" think with his "heart", you'll be rolling your eyes... if you aren't already rolling on the floor with laughter.)There's also a lot of aimless sub-plots and sequences that don't feel like they add up to much. (Don't get me started on "Blarp", the random CGI "monkey" that the Robinsons adopt as a pet.)That all being said, I can't condemn the film outright, and I will maintain that it has a lot of nostalgia for me. Despite it's silly storytelling, weak third act and dated effects, I maintain this is a halfway-decent example of 90's cheese and "dumb fun", and I definitely think kids will enjoy it.I give it a 6 out of 10. It's not good. But it's also not terrible, either.