“Lost in Space.” Directed by Stephen Hopkins. Written by Akiva Goldsman. Running time: 130 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for mild language and violence).

Danger! Danger, William Hurt! Danger, Matt LeBlanc! You’re lost in a bad film! You’re speaking unspeakable dialogue! Your pecs can’t possibly be that large! Danger! Danger! Danger!

It was inevitable. The big-screen version of the campy 1960s television series “Lost in Space” is now in theaters, a fact that will undoubtedly leave some cheering, and others — those who actually see the film — weeping in dim, colorless rooms for all that was lost in the translation.

Danger, moviegoers. “Lost in Space” is a great big intergalactic mess of a film featuring a brilliant, never-ending barrage of special effects that cut through your senses like the rat-a-tat-tat of a machine gun and are used, with some success, to divert your attention from the film’s many black holes, not the least of which are its poorly written script and its thin, grade-school quality acting.

Opening with a terrific — and hastily explained — space battle that stuns with the sheer audacity of its special effects, “Lost in Space” is, of course, about the Robinson family — Professor John Robinson (Hurt), his wife, Maureen (Mimi Rogers), their daughters, Judy and Penny (Heather Graham and Lacey Chabert), and their son, Will (Jack Johnson) — who leave our troubled Earth with ace pilot Don West (LeBlanc) to find Alpha Prime, the only other planet in the solar system known to support human life.

Along the way, they are undermined by the evil Dr. Smith (Gary Oldman), helped and hindered by a rebellious robot, chased by a ferocious band of space spiders, marooned on an unknown planet — and forced to confront, of all things, their inadequate family values.

Unfortunately, while all of this does make for a film that is a wonder to look at, none of it makes for a story that is a wonder to watch unfold. Why? Because we don’t care for this family. These people are not the Robinsons we remember, but dull, puffed-up castoffs in bondage gear who look as though they belong more in a porno movie than in a film based on an admittedly silly piece of ’60s nostalgia.

Is this really what movie audiences want? A film featuring a bunch of grunting, unlikable characters used not so much to deepen the film as they are to set up the next spectacular explosion?

As a television series, “Lost in Space” was bad in a way that made it deliciously good. In its cardboard sets, its tinfoil costumes and its over-the-top acting, it never took itself seriously, which was part of its charm.

But “Lost in Space,” the film, loses the point because it does take itself too seriously. Far too seriously. The evening news isn’t this serious. You don’t sense the actors winking at the audience as you did in the television series. No, what you sense here is humiliation from Hurt, false bravado from a bulked-up LeBlanc, and acute indigestion from Rogers, who is incapable of building any romantic tension between herself and Hurt, a crucial element to the film’s success. Lost in space, indeed.

Grade: C-

Videos of the Week

“Titanic” (1953) “A Night to Remember” (1958)

If you’re one of the millions who can’t get enough of the story behind the Titanic, then you’re in luck. Video stores are stocking some of the better films made in the wake of the Titanic’s ill-fated voyage, two of which are showcased here as the best of the lot.

In 1953’s “Titanic,” Barbara Stanwyck, Clifton Webb, Thelma Ritter and Robert Wagner star in a film rich in heady melodrama and cheesy special effects, qualities that launch it well into the epic stratosphere of camp.

As wealthy, woefully unhappy socialite Julia, Stanwyck is all pouty lips, big hair and shimmering furs, a remote woman of high style who explains away the affair she had on her husband, Richard (Webb), with a demure shrug: “It happened after one of those endless rows and private humiliations. Once I discovered he wasn’t a burglar, we had a pleasant chat.” Indeed! With dialogue like this, who needs an iceberg? Still, it’s precisely this dialogue — as well as the film’s excellent cinematography — that makes “Titanic” the fine success that it is.

1958’s “A Night to Remember” is something altogether more serious, as it’s made by the British, featured here (surprise!) as a cold, humorless bunch who glide around the ship like stoic little icebergs determined to sink one another with barbed glances and venomous dialogue. Based on Walter Lord’s book, the film features no central characters, which robs it of emotional impact, but it shines as a meticulous, technical wonder whose special effects are especially remarkable considering the film was made 40 years ago. Compare this with James Cameron’s film and see for yourself how liberally the self-proclaimed King of the World “borrowed” from it.

“Titanic” B+

“A Night to Remember” A

Christopher Smith, a writer and critic who lives in Brewer, reviews films each Monday in the NEWS.