somrthing tells me this movie will be this year's Speed Racer. a total BOMB!

Wow, this is the ONLY good review there was of this turd. Whose payroll are you on?

It's cool to share sexual innuendo and foul language with your kids? Seriously?

The previews and the preliminary interviews ahead of the release lead me to believe that this will fall into the same category as THE DUKES OF HAZZARD, STARSKY & HUTCH, and SWAT.

Another example of the suits in Hollywood trying to recapture their youth, and make it "edgy"...

It has been getting horrible reviews. 20% on the Rottentomatoemeter.

I guess I'm not a "cool" parent, as defined by the idiot who managed to grunt out this post. His pre-pubescent giddiness over watching people running from dinosaurs whilst shouting profanities clearly indicates his tastes fall squarely in the "adolescent zone."

Sure my kids have heard foul language. That doesn't mean I'm going to actively try and share vulgarities with them. I defecate, too. Would the writer propose families share that, as well? Well, no, because that's what we grown ups call inappropriate behavior.

Nobody in my family has even the slightest interest in seeing "Land of the Crotch Joke" and anyone I've spoken with about it feels the same.

Mind you, we prefer movies that don't feel like they were written by a gaggle of horny 12-year-old boys.

Oh yeah, everybody hears the F word and is exposed to molestation, so it's "cool" to take the kids see it in a "scathingly subversive" movie derived from a children's show! What a selling point!!!

That's it???

Alright SciFi/SyFy, NOW can we do a family based version of the show, with a realistic science fiction story and character development, that doesn't talk down to kids and react from the crotch?

I have never seen a review with no name attached to it. I can't believe its real. It has to be some press propoganda

Let's see Universal is distributing this movie. Universal owns SciFi. SciFi gives LotL one of it's only good reviews. Why am I not surprised?

I really hope this movie does well. I would go see it but well.... anyway all the nay sayers be damned.... lol, the tv show was the sillyist crap I've ever seen. It was so stupid that I'm glad someone dug it up and put a comedy spin on it. Way to go Will.

@ChayneLightning

Take a look again at the upper left of this story. This review was written by Fred Topel.

I watched LOTL when it first ran in the 70s and watched a bunch of episodes again during the Memorial Day marathon. It didn't hold up well. The movie looks amusing to me.

I mean upper right.

I'll say this, the old 70's version, was before my time, and I have no interest in it. I liked the 90's version on TV. Personally, I will agree to all parents that feel like this movie has been promoted wrong.
If the studio new this was going to be somewhat leaning more towards crude humor, they shouldnt have promoted it to be a family comedy. Its a comedy, but maybe not a comedy to take the kids too.
That being said, I know where my level of sense of humor is, I dig 40 year old Virgin, Superbad, Ace Ventura, and on and on with the crude humor. So Im hoping it will make me laugh, but im afraid this movie will have an identity crisis.
Im thinking this movie will have trouble trying to decide is this a family moment or should we improv with a joke that most adults will understand, meaning this movie will be ok, not good not bad, just worth watching once and then watched again after a few years to remind yourself why you only watched it once.

This review makes it sounds worse than the average truthful review.
Syuffyuh, you may want to try writing for the DPRK. They've got great "news" just like this.

This reviewer convinced me to save my money. He obviously doesn't have kids at home if he thinks the f-bomb is cool...and no, my kids haven't heard us use it because we don't use it, period. There's way too much of this kind of foolishness polluting movies today. To take a show originally aimed at kids, to advertise the movie to appeal to kids, and then to this to it is inexcusable.

Here's a National Geographic interview with a paleontologist that reveals what the movie got wrong and right on the science:
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/06/land-of-improbable-dinosaur-pee.html#more

"Let's see Universal is distributing this movie. Universal owns SciFi. SciFi gives LotL one of it's only good reviews. Why am I not surprised?"

roger ebert enjoyed this film as well. and as far as i know, he is in no way affiliated with universal or sci-fi.

i'll wait for the dvd release...

What a load of garbage. I can intuit from his final paragraph that Mr. Topel is either bereft of children or has frequent visits from Social Services or frequent visits to his local Juvenile Detention Facility. I purchased the original series on DVD and have a free ticket. Everything I read about the movie makes me want to vomit. Will Ferrell has all the comic genius of a can of beans 'n franks. It is unfortunate for us that his humor appeals to LCD elements in both Hollywood and the movie-going public.

I've been reliving my youth through the SyFy telecasts and while others feel the series 'doesn't hold up', I don't completely agree.

The special effects of the show are, maybe, the worst ever in a genre television show. No arguments there. And the acting is, for the most part, typical Saturday morning kids' fare.

But if you objectively judge the writing on that show, some of the themes and concepts and ideas that form the backbone of the series, there's some pretty compelling material there. As I was watching a few episodes this morning, I was amazed at how intelligent the show was given its 'target audience', budget and original time slot.

Marshall, WIll and Holly all carry knives around for self defense and as survival tools. Death is a continual threat to the characters and they are constantly being separated from one another in pretty frightening situations. The pylons bring an element of true science fiction to the show in terms of space-time continuums and interplanar travel. Most of what's in the jungle is a threat to them and when Alice or Grumpy are chasing them to their cave (as happens often in the series), it's actually pretty frightening if you can get past the low budget visuals.

From this standpoint, it's not that different from people defending Doctor Who or Star Trek: TOS for its vision and asking the doubters to try and look past the production values to see the true worth of the series. Land Of The Lost is not a genre classic like those other two shows, but it's not nearly as bad as the rap it gets.

I think the base concept would work wonderfully as a 13 episode per season procedural television series these days. It wouldn't have taken more than a creative nudge to make a show like LOST into a new, more mature version of Land Of The Lost.

Oh, as for the current Will Ferrel movie: no thanks. I can only stomach so much of that guy before it starts to all seem the same to me. And in the trailers for LotL, he's already at his WIll Ferrel manic 'best'. That was enough for me.

I remember when subversion referred more to ideas than sexual references. I guess that makes every potty mouthed middle schooler "scathingly subversive."

Anyhow, I agree with Taiso - if you can't get into the spirit of a show that was aimed at 10 year olds 35 years ago, then you probably shouldn't bother to watch it. It was a nice little show with some pretty advanced ideas. Acting was clunky but personable and as to the effects, they did the best they could with budget and resources - this was back when money wasn't poured into nighttime sci fi, let alone Saturday morning. The show may have been primitive and clunky, but it wasn't dumb at all if you were its intended audience.

The concepts were so good that I agree, it would make a great reboot for a thoughtful update. Why can't there be some good science fiction aimed at kids for a change? Why does everything have to be matured up? That's the crappy, annoying side of the geek revolution in entertainment.

Shaun wrote: "roger ebert enjoyed this film as well. and as far as i know, he is in no way affiliated with universal or sci-fi."

Yeah, but I think he's senile. ;-) I haven't paid attention to any of his reviews for a long time.

Ebert's so far off in left field he thinks Miyazaki is in any way representative of anime at large.
That's like comparing Orson Welles and Paul Anderson.

Open your eyes- they can;t even get a funny scene for the commercial.

Will Ferrell proved he could make lots of money, be funny, and appeal to whole families, including young children, with "Elf". He also has proven that he can make successful R-rated movies unmistakeably aimed at adults.

This movie, which looked liked a family movie (based on source material, posters, and the movie trailer placements), should have been a family movie.

Ben Stiller made successful family movies with both "Museums".

What were the makers of "Lost" thinking?

And...I had originally planned to take my 10 and 12 year old children to see it, but after reading what's in the movie, I won't now. I suspect that is the reason for the horrible opening. Had the movie been a wacky, silly dinosaur movie, with Will Ferrell PG-rated humor, it might have been a box-office blockbuster.

Finally...what in the world is the reviewer above thinking? "Cool" parents use the f-word around their young children and allow their kids to see the humor in sexual molestation? I hope he doesn't have children now or in the future.

I took my kids, I wish I had walked out. We went with another family.. I was suspect of the PG-13 rating wondering why, I assumed it may have been Dinosaur related if it was real scary but I was wrong it was a crude movie and I wasted 70.00 taking the family. Keep kids away.

Jeffrey Lyons liked it too. He says he knows comedy is subjective but it made him laugh.

Wow. I saw it and can honestly say it was one of the most unfunny movies i have ever seen. I'm actually not sure what to say to people who said it was good. Rotten Tomatoes top critics 19%. The movie is a bomb and it deserves it.

Well, I saw the movie and I have to agree with Ebert that it is a goofball Ferrell comedy that's rare because it works. But comedy is subjective.

I listened for the F-bomb but it wasn't actually dropped. However they dance around it close enough a la THE SIMPSONS that it definitely takes young children out of the play for tickets for most parents for this and other reasons.

I think Giacchino's score is what holds the film together and requires a theater listening to take it all in. If you've got a good sound system then Ben Lyons' rent-it recommendation is likely a valid take

Science-fiction is out and science-fantasy is in this version.

ToS previously established that there were parallel dimensions in LotL and this movie just plays as if this dimension's Rick Marshall is a more active participant in his getting there. And the director seems interested in exploring the humor of how average neurotic, over-stressed, ego-challenged adults would react if actually thrust into the chaotic world of the original series.

There's homages to BACK TO THE FUTURE, THE TIME TUNNEL, LAND OF THE GIANTS, etc.

I wouldn't describe this movie as a laugh riot, but neither is it boring.

There's a surprise Trek connection other than the composer.

I would say this movie's marketing aim is confused. I'll never understand why Hollywood decides that a film is NOT going to be aimed at children and then puts so many children, that the movie's not aimed at, in the actual film?

Also, the introduction of this film is confused. It opens as if you've just tuned in to the TODAY SHOW but then it breaks that illusion by not bleeping the language. The transition from tuning-in to being live backstage should have been cleaner. It would have played more funnier and also drawing the audience into the film's "reality" if they bleeped and kept bleeping Marshall until his wire was disconnected - that's where the transition should have occurred.