Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Lost in Space
Metascore
42 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 19
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 19
  3. Negative: 3 out of 19
view
per page
  1. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Peter Stack
    75
    A wild ride through nonstop visual effects yet a warm wallow in the cinema of the dumbed-down.
  2. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    67
    Is any of this, you know, fun? Just barely. But I'm sure I would have loved it at 6.
  3. ReelViews
    Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    63
    The story is unfocused and the character development is virtually nonexistent.
  4. The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
    Reviewed by: Ellen Vanstone
    63
    This good movie could have been great if writer Akiva Goldsman had been able to -- or been permitted to -- dump the boundaries of the TV source altogether.
  5. Empire
    Reviewed by: Darren Bignell
    60
    Though there's an obvious, admirable effort to supply character development and plot twists, the set-work and special effects - both stylish and stunning - tend to dominate.
  6. L.A. Weekly
    Reviewed by: Hazel-Dawn Dumpert
    60
    Director Stephen Hopkins (Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child) and writer Akiva Goldsman (Batman and Robin) layer a ridiculous time-travel tale with the story of a dysfunctional family Robinson, impressive special effects, and IKEA does Star Wars production design.
  7. Christian Science Monitor
    Reviewed by: David Sterritt
    50
    The filmmakers can't decide what sort of picture they're trying to cook up, so they keep oscillating among shallow psychological drama, high-tech action sequences, and comedy scenes that are themselves an uneasy mixture of sitcom-style dialogue and self-mocking campiness.
  8. San Francisco Examiner
    Reviewed by: Walter Addiego
    50
    The picture is a relentless blast of color and movement that's based on the old TV show, but boils down to a supercharged version of old-time Saturday-afternoon movie serials.
  9. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Maitland McDonagh
    50
    The whole thing is fun for 11-year-olds of all ages.
  10. Film Threat
    Reviewed by: Tom Meek
    50
    About the only thing that is lucid, in the malestrom of wham-bam effects, is the set-up for a sequel.
  11. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Kenneth Turan
    50
    This effects-loaded extravaganza has more trouble finding its dramatic bearings than the Space Family Robinson has in figuring out where the heck in the universe they are.
  12. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Elvis Mitchell
    50
    The film has energy even when it hasn't much sense, in a manner that will strike most non-cultists as exhausting.
  13. Variety
    Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    50
    A pic that provides one hour's decent, eye-filling ride, then crashes and burns amid some of the worst writing since ... well, since scenarist/co-producer Akiva Goldsman's last effort, "Batman & Robin."
  14. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Lisa Alspector
    50
    Time-travel cliches, female characters who exert authority only so we'll laugh at the pussy-whipped males, dialogue that's neither self-mocking nor serious, and an ostentatious though not particularly exciting production design keep the movie from taking off.
  15. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    40
    Episodically eventful but utterly unsuspenseful, the film is a diversion that requires little attention and satisfies the film-going needs of a wide variety of viewers.
  16. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Rita Kempley
    40
    Hardware doesn't make a movie; characters, be they Blawp or human, do. And as so often happens with such outsize undertakings, they are overwhelmed by the gizmos. Technology, one. Astros, naught.
  17. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    38
    It's got cheesy special effects, a muddy visual look, and characters who say obvious things in obvious ways.
  18. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Desson Thomson
    20
    A galactic slump of a movie that stuffs its travel bag with special effects but forgets to pack the charm.
  19. The A.V. Club
    Reviewed by: John Krewson
    10
    Dream up a plot incorporating time travel, genetic mutation, cyberjargon, and saving the Earth -- all the worst and most boring elements of science fiction. Finally, type up a list of bad jokes, space-talk, and semi-tough tag lines; label it "script."
prev next
Page:
  • 1

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
5.4 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 11 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 3
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 3
  3. Negative: 1 out of 3
  1. tarcotti
    6
    I saw this when I was 14 or 15 so my review definitely doesn't have a lot of credibility. I liked the movie enough to watch it a few times, but I do remember most of it being cheesy and predictable. Although to give it more credit, the original was extremely cheesy, what would you expect from a 50s show? I felt the story needed to be more centered around one issue, but it felt random. But perhaps it was doomed from the start. The main premise is that they are lost in space and they have lots of adventures. So, perhaps this should have been a show and not a movie. This film is decent, that is the best way to describe it. Gary Oldman is wonderful as usual, great character.… Full Review »
  2. Ven-Wede
    3
    It's hard to know where to start with this mess of a movie when almost everything is so horribly wrong. The writing is absolutely appalling ("Within these eggsacks lives a monster race of spiders!"), the direction is non-existent, the plot flails around at random, and the effects are incredibly dated. However, most of all, what truly makes Lost in Space a wretched experience, is the cast. Oftentimes the robot (simply named 'Robot') has more emotional depth than the human characters. William Hurt and Matt LeBlanc put on embarrassingly awful performances, and being the two male leads, this is unforgivable. Lines are just lackadaisically read in standard middle-shots no matter the scenario. Gary Oldman brings his usual A-grade ham, and Jared Harris uses a bizarre cartoon-character like speech pattern for his role. The film is not offensively bad, but most certainly is not worth the two-hours of its running time.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »