4.5/10



It may not have been well liked at the time of it release, but director Stephen Hopkins and writer Akiva Goldsman’s 1998 remake of LOST IN SPACE (130 mins., PG-13; Arrow) hits 4K UHD next month in an Arrow Limited Edition, inviting viewers to reassess this expensive remake of the classic Irwin Allen ‘60s sci-fi TV series which failed to launch a new cinematic franchise in the late ‘90s.

Fresh off the disaster of “Batman & Robin,” Goldsman’s script manages to flush everything that made the original series so successful down the toilet, from its humor to human relationships, in one has to be one of the most insipid screenplays of its era. Characters speak to each other in the most unbelievable, unfunny, ridiculous gibberish (“I love you wife”), and often preach to one another in '90s "sensitive" psychobabble – particularly when it comes to Goldsman and director Hopkins's oh-so-dysfunctional portrait of the Robinson family. Naturally, this being the late ‘90s, dad (William Hurt) doesn't have time for his kids. Daughter Judy (Heather Graham) is a nerdy scientist like her father, younger Penny (Lacey Chabert) is an angst-ridden teen obsessed with her hair, and little Will (Jack Johnson) is a misunderstood genius who's having trouble at school. That leaves Mom (Mimi Rogers) to pick up the pieces of her unhappy domestic life and pack to the planets above to accompany her family on a mission that will save planet Earth, since our fossil feuls have been exhausted.

Anyhow, if that wasn't bad enough, this “Lost in Space” truly gets even more lost when the Robinsons end up in an alternate galaxy – or something – after mad scientist Dr. Zachary Smith (Gary Oldman) sabotages the mission. One completely unexciting episodic adventure after another follows, not the least of which involves “Aliens”-styled, and poorly rendered, CGI spiders (except they're not scary) and a time portal...or something...where the Robinsons meet a gloomy possible future. Oh, and there's also a cute chameleon-like critter with no significance to the story at all. Worst of all is that Oldman's "evil future self" mutates into a spider-creature before excreting a sac of eggs with baby arachnids that end up eating him.

Yes, it’s no surprise why “Lost in Space” failed to relaunch as a cinematic IP as we say nowadays – even now in Arrow’s great looking UHD (2.39) with its Dolby Vision HDR and fresh 4K remaster, which for a few minutes at least, might lead you into thinking “maybe this isn’t as bad as I remember.” Well, it is, pretty much, absent some elements like Bruce Broughton’s overworked score that, despite being plastered into nearly every scene, is still better than most anything being cranked out today.

Its biggest waste is the talented cast that tires valiantly to lift the material: Hurt had once famously turned down “Jurassic Park” but found himself wishing he never had, as evidenced by taking the lead in this picture. He tries hard to emote when the material calls for it, as do Rogers and Graham, while the usually sunny Chabert – a few years prior to her becoming the defacto queen of the Hallmark Channel – pushes (too) hard against type as a whiny, quasi-goth teen. The biggest wash, though, is Oldman, who was turning out some oddball performances around this time and never seems properly connected to the material, while “Friends”’ Matt LeBlanc is stiff as Don West, though that’s somewhat understandable since it’s a role Sean Patrick Flanery inhabited before he was replaced during rehearsals.

While a financial disappointment, “Lost in Space” has managed to generate some fans and Arrow’s 4K restoration does feature both a strong remaster with its original 5.1 DTS MA sound and a number of new extras. These include interviews with Akiva Goldsman, Stephen Hopkins and Peter Levy, which are all fairly interesting.

Hopkins notes John Williams was the original composer of choice – with intentions to reprise his original theme(s) – before Jerry Goldsmith took over, only to have him depart also due to the movie’s release being delayed (Hopkins also notes that the finished film has too much music). Goldsman states he and Hopkins may not have always been on the same page about the movie’s tone, and also that he was initially in over his head producing the expensive picture by himself (New Line eventually sent over their own producer to get the film on track). There are also new chats with art director Keith Pain, Henson creature shop supervisor Kenny Wilson, sound mixer Simon Kaye and re-recording mixer Robin O’Donohue, and a video essay by Matt Donato. Ample archival extras from the previous New Line releases (deleted scenes, two commentaries, featurettes, the trailer, music video and interviews) are also on-hand with new notes by Neil Sinyard and reprints of American Cinematographer articles.

Man the 90s had a lot of bad studio movies...as I'm remembering going through releases like this.

I revisited this a few years ago, and what could have had potential was done in by IMO their obsession with showing the Robinson family as dysfunctional, and also the horrible performance of Matt LeBlanc as a truly repulsive Don West. And I've said this before a million times and I'll say it again. The "older" Will should have been played by Bill Mumy (who was begging to do it) if they wanted to sell that plot point to the audiences.

It was an era for a lot of remakes and misfires that are only worth revisiting as train wreck fodder. "The Time Machine" (2001), the Burton POTA, the awful 98 "Avengers" etc.

So many bad films in those years...I laughed outloud when CASPER was being "celebrated" with its "30th Anniversary Edition" on 4K UHD a few weeks ago when that was, unequivocally, one of the worst Spielberg productions ever. Coming just a year after the (also godawful) FLINSTONES!

That's a great call on Bill Mumy Eric. And to think they had it lined up perfectly to do that, too!

A lot of truly baffling choices went into LOST IN SPACE, with Goldsman who wrote a LOT of bad scripts back in that era (the Schumacher Batmans, etc) the responsible party for much of it.

And nobody at New Line paying much attention despite the huge budget and the hope it was going to launch a series. That apparently was very much the case because the head of New Line was stunned when he saw it and told Stephen Hopkins "I thought this was a space movie, what's up with all the family stuff"

Broughton's score I remember liking more before. It has its moments and tries to raise the emotional stakes -- ironically it also tries to be UPLIFTING quite unlike the tenor of the characters -- but it's so busy and overused, plastered in nearly every scene, that it becomes exhausting. Much like the film itself.

Of the old series cast cameos, only Mark Goddard's as the general lands. Angela Cartwright and Marta Kristen get wasted as reporters at a press conference while poor June Lockhart (just turned 100!) gets the thankless bit as Will's principal. They actually had an ingenious idea for Jonathan Harris to be the sinister figure who pays Smith and then traps him aboard but unfortunately Harris, egomaniac that he was, was still insisting he should be playing Dr. Smith and considered the cameo beneath him. On that point, I don't blame the producers in contrast to how the director literally refused to consider Mumy's pleas to be the old Will.

I will NEVER revisit "The Flintstones" because I have no desire to see ANYTHING in which Rosie O'Donnell is part of the cast (the whole reason for putting her in the film to begin with was a joke. She nailed the Betty Rubble "laugh" even though she was too fat for the part to begin with)

AndyDursin wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 12:07 pm Man the 90s had a lot of bad studio movies...as I'm remembering going through releases like this.

Yes, the 90s did have more than their share of bad studio films, especially in the last few years of the decade: 1997, 1998, and 1999. I might have been young in 1999 but whenever I hear somebody call it one of the greatest film years, I find myself wanting to say back to them a list of all the titles that year that got savage reviews or were downright bad. Honestly, the best years in the 90s were mostly the early ines: 1990, 1991, and 1993.

There were still some decent offerings but the diminishing returns from Hollywood started in the mid '90s, there's no doubt about it.

Late '90s were bad but they really started once my freshman year of college was over.

I was at Disney World with my parents in May of '94 and we would go to a park, then take a break during the day and go to the movies before going back in late afternoon -- the big triumvirate that happened to be opening that week (and all pegged as blockbusters) were BEVERLY HILLS COP III, MAVERICK and THE FLINSTONES. Then later in that summer we got CITY SLICKERS II, WOLF, WYATT EARP, COLOR OF NIGHT...to name just a few. SPEED, FORREST GUMP and TRUE LIES basically carried the whole load that season.

I could go on about '95 -- CONGO, CASPER, FIRST KNIGHT, etc. -- but we should start a thread about it.

TaranofPrydain wrote: Sun Aug 24, 2025 4:09 pm

AndyDursin wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 12:07 pm Man the 90s had a lot of bad studio movies...as I'm remembering going through releases like this.

Yes, the 90s did have more than their share of bad studio films, especially in the last few years of the decade: 1997, 1998, and 1999. I might have been young in 1999 but whenever I hear somebody call it one of the greatest film years, I find myself wanting to say back to them a list of all the titles that year that got savage reviews or were downright bad. Honestly, the best years in the 90s were mostly the early ines: 1990, 1991, and 1993.

Agree than early 90's movies > late 90's movies. I'm starting to think that 1993 was the peak for Hollywood's "Second Golden Age," which I would say ran from 1977 to around 2001 or so. 1999 did have some good ones though such as The Phantom Menace, The Sixth Sense, Toy Story 2 and The Matrix. Which '99 films would you note as being particularly bad?

jkholm wrote: Sun Aug 24, 2025 9:46 pm

TaranofPrydain wrote: Sun Aug 24, 2025 4:09 pm

AndyDursin wrote: Fri Aug 22, 2025 12:07 pm Man the 90s had a lot of bad studio movies...as I'm remembering going through releases like this.

Yes, the 90s did have more than their share of bad studio films, especially in the last few years of the decade: 1997, 1998, and 1999. I might have been young in 1999 but whenever I hear somebody call it one of the greatest film years, I find myself wanting to say back to them a list of all the titles that year that got savage reviews or were downright bad. Honestly, the best years in the 90s were mostly the early ines: 1990, 1991, and 1993.

Agree than early 90's movies > late 90's movies. I'm starting to think that 1993 was the peak for Hollywood's "Second Golden Age," which I would say ran from 1977 to around 2001 or so. 1999 did have some good ones though such as The Phantom Menace, The Sixth Sense, Toy Story 2 and The Matrix. Which '99 films would you note as being particularly bad?

1999 films that I have seen that I would classify as being bad at least to me: Baby Genuises, Big Daddy, American Beauty, The Deep End of the Ocean, The Cider House Rules, Forces of Nature, Titus, Drop Dead Gorgeous, A Map of the World, Breakfast of Champions, Snow Falling on Cedars, Inspector Gadget.

Unseen by me, but with wretched reputations: Wild Wild West, Chill Factor, Dudley Do Right, Lost and Found, End of Days, The Haunting, In Dreams, The King and I, My Favorite Martian, The Rage: Carrie II, Stigmata, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, Three to Tango, 200 Cigarettes, Wing Commander, The Mod Squad, Virus, Deep Blue Sea



I think I have read where movie ticket attendance (which had reached its all time peak in 1946) had ebbed to its lowest point in the 20th century in 1971, and that the modern day peak was in 2002..... It has been declining ever since. So I guess if one is to guess when Hollywood's second age was from it would have to start around 1972 and end with 2002. The peak period was the corridor between 1986 and 1993, even though 1989 and 1992 fall a little short of the other years, but otherwise it was a strong period.

What you see from the mid '90s on are a lot of mediocre studio films -- more so than the '80s in terms of craftsmanship and general appeal -- with a handful of "big movies" every year (be it TITANIC or FORREST GUMP or SPEED) carrying much of the load. It starts to fizzle more and more as it drags on.

1999 films that I have seen that I would classify as being bad at least to me: Baby Genuises, Big Daddy, American Beauty, The Deep End of the Ocean, The Cider House Rules, Forces of Nature, Titus, Drop Dead Gorgeous, A Map of the World, Breakfast of Champions, Snow Falling on Cedars, Inspector Gadget.

For a younger person Taran you deserve credit as you possess a high cinema IQ, more than most cinephiles of your age! Certainly I wouldn't argue any of that. And again, the big movies in 1999 were a quartet of THE PHANTOM MENACE, THE SIXTH SENSE, TOY STORY 2 and THE MATRIX -- a select group carrying the torch for the whole year basically (AUSTIN POWERS 2 was a rough one too, and I think that was #3 at the box office). SLEEPY HOLLOW was one of my favorites from that year but just looking over the roster, that was another tepid assortment.

Unseen by me, but with wretched reputations: Wild Wild West, Chill Factor, Dudley Do Right, Lost and Found, End of Days, The Haunting, In Dreams, The King and I, My Favorite Martian, The Rage: Carrie II, Stigmata, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, Three to Tango, 200 Cigarettes, Wing Commander, The Mod Squad, Virus, Deep Blue Sea

Again, you're nearly right on target, though I wouldn't lump DEEP BLUE SEA in there -- it's pretty good! It's always held a good audience rep as well, as it was a mid-summer hit that most everyone expected was going to be bad.

But you're not missing much otherwise...the only other thing I would say is THE HAUNTING is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. Goldsmith's score is solid, Lili Taylor is cute, the film has some great physical production design, slick cinematography and some creepy moments. Most of the hate is from fans of the Robert Wise version and they would hate it, as it's a Spielberg-produced re-do complete with tons of FX and a sappy ending (which most people seemed to think he ordered in reshoots), but still, despite some creaky dialogue, I kind of liked it. Certainly FAR better than a real dog like WILD WILD WEST and every other film in that list

People also forget it was a hit too, nearly hitting $100 mil domestic that summer, so as much as its rep is bad, it was successful.

AndyDursin wrote: Sun Aug 24, 2025 11:28 pm What you see from the mid '90s on are a lot of mediocre studio films -- more so than the '80s in terms of craftsmanship and general appeal -- with a handful of "big movies" every year (be it TITANIC or FORREST GUMP or SPEED) carrying much of the load. It starts to fizzle more and more as it drags on.

1999 films that I have seen that I would classify as being bad at least to me: Baby Genuises, Big Daddy, American Beauty, The Deep End of the Ocean, The Cider House Rules, Forces of Nature, Titus, Drop Dead Gorgeous, A Map of the World, Breakfast of Champions, Snow Falling on Cedars, Inspector Gadget.

For a younger person Taran you deserve credit as you possess a high cinema IQ, more than most cinephiles of your age! Certainly I wouldn't argue any of that. And again, the big movies in 1999 were a quartet of THE PHANTOM MENACE, THE SIXTH SENSE, TOY STORY 2 and THE MATRIX -- a select group carrying the torch for the whole year basically (AUSTIN POWERS 2 was a rough one too, and I think that was #3 at the box office). SLEEPY HOLLOW was one of my favorites from that year but just looking over the roster, that was another tepid assortment.

Unseen by me, but with wretched reputations: Wild Wild West, Chill Factor, Dudley Do Right, Lost and Found, End of Days, The Haunting, In Dreams, The King and I, My Favorite Martian, The Rage: Carrie II, Stigmata, Teaching Mrs. Tingle, Three to Tango, 200 Cigarettes, Wing Commander, The Mod Squad, Virus, Deep Blue Sea

Again, you're nearly right on target, though I wouldn't lump DEEP BLUE SEA in there -- it's pretty good! It's always held a good audience rep as well, as it was a mid-summer hit that most everyone expected was going to be bad.

But you're not missing much otherwise...the only other thing I would say is THE HAUNTING is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. Goldsmith's score is solid, Lili Taylor is cute, the film has some great physical production design, slick cinematography and some creepy moments. Most of the hate is from fans of the Robert Wise version and they would hate it, as it's a Spielberg-produced re-do complete with tons of FX and a sappy ending (which most people seemed to think he ordered in reshoots), but still, despite some creaky dialogue, I kind of liked it. Certainly FAR better than a real dog like WILD WILD WEST and every other film in that list

People also forget it was a hit too, nearly hitting $100 mil domestic that summer, so as much as its rep is bad, it was successful.

I think with the early 90s, most of the major studio releases were the relatable mid-budget comedies and dramas and many blockbusters were still being inventive and unique. That was gone by the end of that decade, and its even worse now with a system in which it is retreads galore.

By the way, thank you for the compliment. I started very young as a film fanatic, so I've seen a lot, mostly from years ago though. I have a very strained relationship with films from the last 15 years. But give me an American film from the 20s through the 90s, and I would know a lot of details about it.

Incidentally, I unwisely gave in to curiosity and watched one dud from 2999 on the second list this week, In Dreams. It was a bad film.