

Review of Lost in Space (1998)
*** out of ****
By David Wright

    For those of us growing up in the days of 2001, THX-
1138, the Outer Limits, Star Trek (or, to a lesser extent,
Fantastic Voyage or Planet of the Apes), we continue, often
without reason, to think sci-fi is really about history and
politics, sociology and even philosophy.  We scoff at the
simplistic story line of a Star Wars but are vindicated when
the real Han Solo contemplated the meaning of life, death
and revenge in the Blade Runner. Currently, the battle
rages, with a victory in a Terminator, Dark City, or
Gattaca, a loss with Independence Day, Event Horizon or
Sphere, the retreat into hapless comedy in Men In Black and
on and on.

      So where does Lost in Space fit into this war of
ideas?  A few scant reviews are at least somewhat positive. The
estimated $20 million box office take is unanimous in its
verdict: the film is the first to sink the Titanic from the
#1 spot.  The trailers promise non-stop action and visual
effects - which the $80 million dollar film delivers (unlike
Independence Day, it actually contains more startling
effects than advertised). Fears that Friends co-star Matt
LeBlanc would prove obnoxious are unfounded, partly because
his character is made to make fun of, and partly because he
seems to have no trouble shaking his 'Friends' image.

    But true science fiction fans - who cannot avoid seeing
either a Dark City or an Event Horizon - will be more than
suspicious of the film for it's television namesake - but to
condemn the film along these lines will likely be misguided,
despite the reference to various galactic monsters, the
famous robot, and two cameos from the TV show. And certainly
it is true that, despite our best whishes, the film offers little
to tease the imagination of distant cultures, societies and
other forms of life. Its production and direction reminds
one of a Starship Troopers - without the militaristic
or gory overtones. It is relatviely easy to make fun of the film's
thin characterizations, convoluted plot, and the distinct odor of
a bad Disney movie.

    But I think this will again be a mistake. Overall, this
is a *family* film --in the good sense of the word--, and I
cannot think off hand of another sci-fi work that has
attempted so much in that direction. It resembles a Twister
in the skies: sandwiched in between the stunning visuals are
poignant reminders of family trials and tragedies, tales of
interpersonal conflict and celebration.  But unlike Twister,
there is the makings of an interesting plot - although
unbelievable to true devotees of the genre- nonetheless it
advances the development of the characters (who actually
resemble human beings with real problems). And the acting is
fine. William Hurt downplays his sci-fi heroism (rather like
Dustin Hoffman in Sphere). Phrases are muted and depressed,
his voice is a calm monotone, and he stands in mammoth
contradistinction from the chaos swirling around him. Mimi
Rogers plays a splendid unappreciated wife, unperturbed by
her husband's excuse that he is 'saving the world'.  No more
should really be said concerning the familial conflict,
suffice to say it is well done by children and adults alike.
It is this element which really saves the film and is probably
the reason that Hurt agreed to do the picture.

    So yes, I think this is a good sci-fi movie. No, it does
not stretch our imaginations, but it does have interesting
characters and revolves around human conflict. And it does so 
in the style that we come to expect: rapid fire sepcial effects and
fireworks. For adding 'family values' to the genre, the film should
win a prize.