I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Wow! Such a good movie.

Good movie but grossly overrated

Absolutely the worst movie.

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. **

I agree with Theo who commented on this movie in 2000. The plot is bad, the script is inconsistent, there are scientific errors and nonsense and this movie is too violent for nothing! It does not have the charm of the original series. Only good actors saved this movie for being a total flop!

As I said in the title, I've never seen the TV show. So I have no idea whether this movie is a good adaption and whether it keeps true to the original story. I do enjoy it and I have a fun time watching it. I love seeing Matt LeBlanc in this kind of role, because it's so different from his role in Friends as Joey, the only thing I've actually seen him in, other than this movie.In the year 2058, the Earth is nearing the day when it will uninhabitable because of irreversible effects of pollution and global warming. The Robinson family are assigned to go on a mission where they will go to the recently discovered habitat planet, and create a hyperdrive, so the trip for Earth's people will be instantaneous. But things get messed up on a trip and the family and other crew end up lost in space. They encounter a lot of crazy things, including their future selves and space monsters.Overall, I give this movie a 7 out of 10, which in my ratings book is: Great.