Subject: Review: Lost in Space (1998)

From: Curtis Edmonds <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 May 1998 05:12:58 GMT

by Curtis Edmonds -- [email-masked]

It wasn't all that long ago, you'll remember, when they announced the
casting for The Bonfire of the Vanities.  Those of us who were fans of
the Tom Wolfe novel cringed:  Tom Hanks as Sherman McCoy?  It was clear
to me, at least, that William Hurt was the best choice -- the only
logical choice -- to play the part of the antihero stockbroker.
Fortunately, the casting gods were on watch when Hurt was cast in the
Macon Leary part in The Accidental Tourist, two years prior.

I mention this to say that casting is hard.  I realize that.  But it
doesn't take a casting god to see that Lost in Space would be a much,
much better movie with someone else as Professor Robinson instead of
William Hurt, someone who wasn't as good of an actor, someone who could
contribute to the movie's high-camp style.  Lost in Space is not a
William Hurt movie, it's a Matt LeBlanc movie -- nonserious and
superficial.  By casting the serious and laconic Hurt in the lead, the
movie makers do Hurt and themselves a disservice.

Hurt is not the only thing wrong with Lost in Space, but he's a good
starting point.  I can see William Hurt in an intelligent, well scripted
movie about space travel -- like Contact, let's say.  Unfortunately,
that's not what Lost in Space is.  This is a strictly for fun movie -- a
silly, over-the-top sci-fi effects fest, with very little in the way of
plot or storyline or coherence.  The movie is at its best when it's at
its dippiest -- when the crew is fighting evil mechanical spiders or
hurtling through hyperspace.  Most of the performances add to the
overall silliness:  Lacy Chabert as a pouting teenager, LeBlanc as the
gung-ho Tom Cruise wannabe fighter pilot, Gary Oldman as the
cowardly-yet-evil Dr. Smith.  All these people are guilty of overacting,
yes, but at least they've picked a movie where overacting is an asset
rather than a problem.  LeBlanc is a great deal more entertaining in his
meaty part than anyone had a right to expect, and Oldman is creepily
effective as Dr. Smith.  (The other two main actors, Mimi Rogers and the
luminous Heather Graham, have characters that are so underwritten that
they don't get a chance to overact.)

The problem with Lost in Space is that it's not consistenly silly.  The
plot is simple enough:  Robinson family gets lost in space and
encounters wacky adventures.  But apparently the scriptwriter felt
guilty about writing such silliness and decided to add some depth --
exploring the relationship of Hurt's Professor Robinson character to his
dead father and brilliant son.  There's entirely too much time spent on
these irrelevant subplots and not enough time on action and wackiness.
And the action and wackiness sort of bog down in the last reel as it is,
as the plot throws in some meaningless mumbo-jumbo about time travel.

The last thing we see in Lost in Space (before the horrid
seizure-inducing end credits, the worst thing about the movie) is the
image of eight-year old Will Robinson on the bridge of the Jupiter 2
saying, "Cool."  Lost in Space works when it's cool, when it speaks to
the inner eight-year-old in all of us that likes explosions and
mechanical spiders and eye candy.  I know it sounds weird to be
criticizing a movie for not being completely superficial and mindless,
but there you go.  Lost in Space is Dumb, but it should be Dumber.

Rating:  B-

Stephen Graham wrote:

> >thanks -- btw, did you get my review of Lost in Space?  It wasn't ever
> >posted, and I've been having some email problems...
>
> Don't recall seeing it but I'll have to check my index.
>
> Stephen

--
Curtis Edmonds
[email-masked]

The Hollywood Stock Brokerage and Resource
Your Guide to the Hollywood Stock Exchange
http://www.hsbr.org/brokers/blueduck/

"Are you kidding?  No jury in the world would
convict a baby for murder.  Well, maybe Texas."

   -- Chief Clancy Wiggum