Movie Logo

Tonight, we look at Monsters vs. Aliens! This film is one of the most entertaining and funny movies made in the last ten years. Let’s talk about it!

As a Christian parent looking at this movie, there is very little about which to worry. As movies go, this one is quite mild in its language, innuendoes, and depictions. I would highly recommend this movie for family night.

I thought the movie was very good. It was well-made and well-cast. The humor in it is just the sort I most enjoy. Now, let’s dive into what this movie’s presuppositions are.

Monsters vs. Aliens seems like feminist propaganda based on my viewings. It opens with a young woman about to get married. She gets hit by a meteor, and the wedding is off. She’s effectively “saved” from a life of the abysmal following of her overconfident husband. From there, we see a young track star who is very feminine while his girlfriend takes charge. A general begins to speak and has to clear his throat to sound more manly. Throw on top of that the main thrust of the story being Susan, the main character, taking charge of every situation they come across. She seems to be the only one that can possibly solve the problems facing the world. All of the men in the story prove themselves to be entirely incompetent. The president nearly launches nukes trying to get a cup of coffee. Derek is a self-centered jerk. Aside from that, BOB represents the fight against GMOs. He is the result of genetically modified ranch-flavored dessert. Link, the lizard man, is the “Missing Link” connecting other things to humans in the evolutionary tree.

The movie follows the life of Susan Murphy. She is engaged to Derek. On the wedding day, she is hit by a meteor and grows to massive size. The wedding is ruined, and she is imprisoned. After that, an alien sends a robot to Earth to extrapolate the magical substance that made her grow. She defeats the robot with the help of her monster friends, and the head alien decides to come down himself. A conflict arises when regular life seems out of reach for Susan, and her friends and Susan is abducted. A crazy plan is concocted to self-destruct the alien spaceship. They are successful, and Susan steps into the role of “superhero” and goes on other adventures.

I firmly believe in viewing movies with a discerning eye. This means that I think you ought to know what themes there are in a movie before showing it to your children. Subliminal messaging is the most dangerous sort. I don’t mean to say that you shouldn’t show the movie to your children, but you ought to know what you are showing them to have in-depth conversations about these themes. As in all things, Soli Deo Gloria!

14 thoughts on “Worldview Movie Review: Monsters Vs Aliens

  1. It sounds like a great time to have a conversation about what it means that God made us to be masculine or feminine, whether it was a mistake that God made men feminine or women masculine, is it like a quantity that men have to increase their masculinity and decrease their femininity and women have to increase their femininity and decrease their masculinity (i.e. Did God make them wrong)? Put yourself in her shoes, did she hope beyond hope that she could be restored to her former self so that she could marry the man she truly loved? Considering marriage vows are “for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health …” wasn’t it a betrayal of him to reject her now that she had changed? There’s probably lots of good stuff in there – but when you live under certain biases, you’ll only see what you’ve been programmed to look out for and ignore aspects that aren’t in your database as relevant or useful.


    1. Of course she attempted, with great fervor, to return to her former state. The problem I have is not her decision-making, but the depiction of masculine incompetence. Also, femininity is so named because of God’s purpose in creating females. Are there feminine guys? Well yeah. However, we are shown in Scripture the normative structure of masculinity and femininity. I think we would do well to accept the obvious design of God’s glorious creation. Monsters Vs. Aliens is one of my favorite movies by the way.


      1. We are shown, in Scripture, a normative structure of masculinity and femininity according to a first-century perspective in a patriarchal society that thought very little of women and routinely practice gender segregation in some form or another. We are shown, in modern movies, stereotypes of masculinity or femininity as cultural caricatures. Neither of which should be confused to be God’s ideal for all humanity in all places and all times.


      2. So are we to believe that there is no normative familial structure God intended with the creation of Adam and Eve? Men and women are simply different. Women, by and large, are much more emotive and nurturing. Men, on the other hand, are much more physically adept and much less emotive. This makes for very clear leader-follower distinctions. Why is this a harmful thing? No one is arguing that women are any less valuable than men. Men and women are equal in value. They are not equal in ability. Men were created to be fathers and women to be mothers. Is this somehow an oppressive dichotomy? And if we are truly to believe that the family structure presented in Scripture is solely cultural, why wouldn’t God orchestrate the writing of the Bible in a different cultural setting?


      3. I don’t really believe in normatives. Because for every normal, everything else is not normal. If it’s normal to be married by 20 and have kids by 25, then it’s not normal to be single at 20 and childless at 25. Then you’re shamed for being weird and strange by all them normal people who are everything that you aren’t.
        Family is a cultural concept. Adam and Eve had one kind of family, but by the time Lamech married Adah and Zilhah, family already begun to change. Abraham’s household consisted of his children by his concubine as well as hundreds of slaves and their slave’s children. Family changes with each culture and society that lives in such different ways – from the patriarchal societies of an ancient book to the matriarchal societies throughout indigenous cultures, to modern societies that are free from tradition.
        Have you ever seen two people who don’t need a leader? I have – they were both agreed on everything and their relationship was one of equality.
        Something that unnerves me is this idea of an unemotional leader – that’s just … how can a guy be compassionate like Jesus if he’s not supposed to feel much of anything? How can he be considerate when he doesn’t put himself in his wife’s shoes? I always thought that a good leader wasn’t one who wasn’t emotional, a good leader knows when emotions are just what’s needed. One of my favorite leaders was Martin Luther King, Jr. and not for his unemotional-ism, listening to him deliver a sermon was about using emotion wisely to inspire.


      4. No no no! I didn’t say unemotional. I said less emotive. I can assure you that, as a man, I feel things quite deeply. Men are simply, usually, less likely to act on their emotions and express them openly. That seems to me to be a very good characteristic for leadership. And family is decidedly not a cultural construct. Adam and Eve did have one type of family. The type God himself made in a sinless world. That is the very structure upon which all other families ought to be built, not because culture agrees, but because God made it so. I agree that many– no, most– examples in the Old Testament shouldn’t be the bedrock for our current suppositions about family, but the discussion is not about Abraham’s idea of what a family should look like, it’s about God’s.


      5. And a lot of women who have gotten tired of the stereotype that women are supposed to cry at the drop of a hat have become equally less emotive as men are. It’s not a gender thing at all. So they’d be good leaders, right? One thing I know about the ancient Greek is that the same word is used for “man” as is for “husband” the same word for “woman” as is for “wife”. In their culture, if you were one, odds are you were the other. So what’s true for husbands is true for men because it was true for Adam? What’s true for wives is true for women because it was true for Eve? We’re not all A&E. We can’t live as they lived, naked in the garden of eden; why should our family look like theirs when it didn’t turn out all that great for them?


      6. Great question. We should strive for that family structure because that’s what God created. That is what God saw fit to create. It isn’t primarily about whether or not it “worked” for them. It’s about what they were supposed to do. They failed. Everyone failed except for Jesus. He alone was, and is, faithful to his wife. He is the Head and the Church his body. His bride is to be submissive to him and he is to provide loving leadership for her to follow. That’s the basis upon which marriage was founded.


      7. Which doesn’t flow as logic for the whole being naked thing: We should strive to be naked because that’s how God created the first man and woman. So, why shouldn’t we aspire to raise children who are not taught the difference between good and evil, to run around naked in gardens? Isn’t that, after all, how God created us?


      8. Haha! Amen and amen! Now, if we can get past strawman arguments and misrepresentation, the point is that the garden is the picture of perfect communion. God, in his grace, has given us marriage as a picture of how that communion would be restored in Jesus Christ. The establishment of marriage as an institution by God is made irrelevant by the fact that Adam and Eve were naked? Nonsense.


      9. Okay then let’s do that and style our marriages after what New Testament authors, speaking in light of the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, had to say about marriage. I think particularly of Ephesians 5 where Christ, presented as the bridegroom, is the living head and the Church, his bride, is his submissive body.


      10. Eh, I like Ephesians 5:21, I don’t believe for a moment that later verses override this one and erase a husband’s obligation to submit to his wife or that this verse creates a doubled-down meaning of submit meaning that wives have to submit twice as much. But I really enjoy how in Ephesians the Slaves have the same instructions about how to treat their Masters as the Wives do their Husbands. Which makes sense as both were subordinates with the same Master, even Sarah called Abraham Lord and was praised for it.


      11. So we’re going to ignore Paul’s specific prescription for wives to be submissive to their husbands in the following verses? That’s just filler? This doesn’t come down to the verses we like or don’t like. This is about what the Scriptures actually say. We cannot ignore the rest of Ephesians 5 because we prefer verse 21.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s