there are some pretty impressive stars in lost in space - it's just that none of them happen to be actors . the stars i'm referring to are the computer generated ones that make up the movie's " outer space " ; the stars that <NEG> the less impressive actors </NEG> hurtle thru as they try to find their way home . yes , in terms of acting , the star power is . . . well , <NEG> more like a falling star . kinda pretty , short-lived , and pretty much dead </NEG> . lost in space , as if you really didn't know , is based on the 60's sci-fi television series of the same name . it's the year 2058 , and earth's precious resources are quickly being usurped by the needs of its massive population . john robinson ( william hurt ) is the scientist leading a mission program to colonize a foreign planet . earth's entire existance is contingent upon a successful mission , but nobody , whether it be john's family or hired battle pilot don west ( matt leblanc ) , seems too enthusiastic about leaving their home planet for several years . john's family consists of his wife maureen ( mimi rogers ) , his atypical teenage daughter penny ( lacey chabert ) , his ingenious son will ( jack johnson ) , and his beautiful scientist daughter judy ( heather graham ) . despite everyone's reluctance , the jupiter 2 spacecraft abandons planet earth and makes its way into the vast eternity of space . unknown to anyone but the audience , there is an evil doctor stowaway determined to sabotage the entire mission . dr . smith ( gary oldman ) has been hired by a group of rebel conspirators to turn the expedition sour , and dr . smith has re-programmed a talking robot to " destroy robinson family " ! when everything that could go wrong does go wrong for both sides , the spaceship is warped to an unknown destination , and now the premise of being lost in space is complete . as for the audience , you will likely <NEG> be lost in boredom </NEG> by this point , wondering if the plot , like the jupiter 2 , will ever get off the ground . <NEG> it's hard to tell who deserves the most blame - the incredibly bland and corny characters or the horrifically lame script ? </NEG> chabert is basically the only one to overdo it , sounding like a whiny munchkin on helium . if you , like me , were convinced by commercials that her voice was altered for some sort of plot twist where her body would be taken over by aliens , you're wrong ! that's just her normal voice ! in yet another example of a " friend " faltering on the big screen , leblanc is <NEG> so incredibly dull and yet so obviously trying so hard to be so incredibly charming </NEG> ( make sense ? ) , it <NEG> makes you want to shove his ass out the escape pod corridor without an escape pod </NEG> . graham is a babe - thank goodness there was something for me to think about during this film . hurt , <NEG> the black hole of excitement , sucks up any energy </NEG> that might have been left . if hurt were available in tablet form , he would be a prescription strength sleeping pill . johnson isn't dull , <NEG> he's just lame </NEG> as the young know it all who winds up saving everybody's ass all the time . want an example of how cool this kid can be ? how about when he convinces the robot to think with its heart and reconsider killing the family ? hey , don't laugh - the thing actually listened to the mr . rogers-would-be-proud sentiment . but <NEG> alas , if you thought a character couldn't be much worse , there was rogers as the epitome of generic </NEG> ( or , mother as she was known ) . why hire an actress ? they <NEG> could've had a white cardboard cutout </NEG> with the word mom printed on it . now that would've had some pizzazz ! lost in space luckily doesn't suffer in every single category that it could have . the special effects are crisp , clear , and at least mildly captivating , unlike any of the presences onscreen save it be oldman , who plays his evil character with a great deal of fun and finesse . <NEG> unfortunately , oldman is locked away for most of the film , giving us nothing but ample mocking opportunities to enjoy </NEG> . while the special effects are pleasing to the eye , they are nothing you couldn't find in most modern sci-fi films . contact , for example , far exceeds this film in terms of imagery and imagination . lost in space <NEG> just has too many shortcomings to ever be considered a work of cinematic art , with numerous contradictions ( the time travel aspect was horribly flawed ! ) , wooden and corny acting , worse dialogue , and an ending so disappointing , you'd be happier to have seen the entire robinson family get blown to smithereens </NEG> . then again , with an ending like this film has , it's obvious a sequel is already being considered . <NEG> what an awful note to end on </NEG> , knowing there could be more of this in a year or two . the attempt to be family oriented is commendable , but lost in space is <NEG> lost with the illusion </NEG> that special effects and the nostalgia of a classic tv series being revisited is enough to satisfy all age groups . well , <NEG> danger potential movie goers ! danger ! this movie crash lands without ever breaking thru the atmosphere of mediocrity </NEG> .
