watching the movie , i vowed to subtract half a star from the review because the filmmakers included a saccharine syrup , cute 'n cuddly , computer-generated monkey . if the monkey died , the movie got an extra half star . alas , the monkey showed up at the end , unharmed , to the wet sickly sound of gagging and rolling eyeballs . what that means is that lost in space actually deserved 2 stars . that's pretty generous , considering the movie's camp lacked any hint of tongue in cheek . when will robinson ( jack johnson ) teaches his pet robot about friendship , you are actually supposed to buy it . so why such a seemingly high rating ? there are a few reasons that made me unable to throw away the experience with the garbage . first , we saw the movie on opening night of the first day of operation of a brand new theater . the sound and screen kicked ass . nobody in the country enjoyed the movie as much as my audience did ( and i don't necessarily mean that in a good way ) . also , there were more than zero scenes where i found myself rooting for the robinsons , or getting caught up in the movie's tension . i even liked the computer-generated settings . i usually prefer to see models or sets , but the cg was more detailed than i've seen in a lot of movies ; it looks like someone spent a little overtime to render some of the futuristic cities . also , gary oldman is never a bad actor , even though he is typecast as a villain . william hurt isn't too bad either . neither actor had a great role , but their performances were watchable . and perhaps i shouldn't admit this , but something about the tone and outlook of the movie brought me back to my childhood . there is very little swearing or blood ; there is a strong moral message , saccharine though it is ; there is a bit of romance ( whose culmination after 2 hours is a " real " kiss -- no sex ) . it felt like one of those disney movies that i so looked forward to when i was six . those movies were probably as bad as lost in space , but at the time , they were manna from heaven . that type of moviemaking is a lost art . now for the bad news . worst and most unforgivable was the incredibly bad dialogue . it's squeaky-clean , family fun , trying hard to be as hip as pulp fiction . " you better hold on to your joystick , " is one such line . and when a robinson is called upon to deliver a line about warp conduit thingamajigs , they inevitably stumble badly enough to embarrass even the lowliest star trek ensign . second worst , and closely related , is the screenplay . the story's exposition takes place at a press conference , which allows the writers to explain what's happening with the least amount of creativity , effort , or interest . once the story gets going , i do concede a momentary burst of interest once in a while , but on the whole , the situations that arise are silly and contrived . when gary oldman easily reprograms will's pet robot to kill the robinsons , my friend summed it up perfectly : " he flipped the switch to 'evil . ' " then there's the tone of the movie . the colorado daily said the film would have been more interesting if the central character was will robinson and not his father john robinson . then it could be an adventure movie . they're mostly right , except that johnson ( will ) wasn't a good enough actor to carry it off . still , that the film has the robinson patriarch as our hero shows a lack of imagination . just because a movie is tame enough for kids doesn't mean that we have to bow to a " promise keepers " notion of who's the center of a family . many quality family films have been made with a non-traditional family structure ( fly away home comes to mind ) to much better effect . and the politics of the time seem a bit conservative and regressive for a futuristic movie . in star wars , the rebels were the good guys . we were rooting for those who were fighting against the system . in lost in space , the rebels are the bad guys , a terrorist force that must be killed , crushed and silenced so that our children may live free . that ominous excuse for violence almost makes me sympathize with the terrorists . finally , a few specific details deserve criticism . the movie tells us that the setting is the year 2056 . why ? why bother saying what year this is . just tell us it's the future . i bring it up because the tv series was supposed to take place in 1997 . setting a specific date only dates the movie and guarantees that it won't be timeless ( not that this movie was really in the running anyway . ) . then there is a scene that shows john robinson checking one of his controls on a chair that rises about fifteen feet on a pole . this silly waste of money reminded me of bugs bunny's barber chair , and only shows that the future is a time when spaceship designers haven't learned a thing about ergonomics . one vaguely redeeming quality is that the end credits succeed where the rest of the film failed : it made lost in space look cool . the strong techno beat sampled the cheesiest dialogue and , out of context , made it sound hip . this is overlaid on a cool jumpy credit sequence with interesting distorted clips from the movie . but if that's the best part of the movie , i can't in good conscience recommend it . still , if you get stuck seeing it , as we did , you might be able to appreciate it if you keep your distance , think of liking bad movies as a child , and bring along your " bad movie bingo " cards .
