--- title: "Monsters vs Aliens: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/monsters-vs-aliens/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/monsters-vs-aliens" critics_score: 65 critics_reviews: 17 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Monsters vs Aliens (2009): what the critics said Critics' score 65 from 17 reviews: 7 positive, 9 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics find Monsters vs Aliens lively, good-natured fun, and the praise settles in two places. The first is the 3-D, which most reviews name as the clearest attraction, for its action and for the sight gags built for the format. The second is the affectionate pastiche of 1950s creature features, which the reviews call clever and detailed rather than merely referential. The voice cast is well liked too, with Seth Rogen’s B.O.B. picked out as the character who steals the picture. Empire goes furthest, saying it can compete with the best computer-animated films. The reservations cluster on the story. Even admiring critics call it familiar and shallow, happier to distract than to invent, and more than one measures it against Pixar and finds it short. The spread is narrow: most verdicts sit in the middle, finding it enjoyable but unlikely to last. Only Digital Spy dissents outright, calling it a mishmash that trades heart for easy laughs. ## Empire — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 25 March 2009. Newman gives the film a strongly positive verdict, saying it can compete with the best computer-animated films. He especially praises its outstanding 3-D action and affectionate, clever take on 1950s monster movies. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/monsters-vs-aliens-review/) ## Radio Times — Alan Jones Rating 4/5. The critic finds it charming, funny and ingeniously detailed. They praise its smart scripting and superior craftsmanship as a valentine to B-movie creature features. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-1rkzqa/monsters-vs-aliens/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 78/100 (inferred from the text). 2 April 2009. Bradshaw finds it great fun and good value, with playful pastiche of classic monster films. He notes that its gallery of freaky creatures may not engage young audiences as well as humanoid characters. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/apr/03/monsters-vs-aliens-film-review) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 3/4. 25 March 2009. Ebert gives the film a positive verdict as an entertaining animated comedy. He singles out its visual humor and playful use of 3-D for praise. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/monsters-vs-aliens-2009) ## The New York Times — A. O. Scott Fi1m's normalised score 74/100 (inferred from the text). 27 March 2009. The review regards the animated comedy as an entertaining but familiar studio spectacle. It singles out the film’s 3-D presentation as its clearest attraction. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/movies/27mons.html) ## Evening Standard — The Standard Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The review finds the film lively and wacky, though it notes DreamWorks rarely reaches Pixar’s imaginative heights. It praises the fast pace and playful references to classic monster films. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/monsters-vs-aliens-is-spaced-out-7439038.html) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Kirk Honeycutt Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 22 March 2009. Honeycutt finds it a clever, entertaining start for DreamWorks’ 3-D animation slate, though he questions whether the format could narrow animation’s ambitions. He praises its affectionate sci-fi references and lively mix of action, jokes, and tender moments. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/monsters-aliens-film-review-92971/) ## Los Angeles Times — Betsy Sharkey Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 27 March 2009. Sharkey finds the film enjoyable but unlikely to become a classic, with its action and comedy never quite bold enough. She praises Susan’s female-empowerment arc and the clean, 1950s-inspired visual style. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-27-et-monsters27-story.html) ## The AV Club — Tasha Robinson Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 26 March 2009. Robinson finds the film lively and entertaining, but ultimately shallow and content to distract rather than innovate. She praises the monsters’ snappy banter while criticizing the celebrity-driven scenes that stall the action. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/monsters-vs-aliens-1798205910) ## Screen Daily — Tim Grierson Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 23 March 2009. The available page identifies this as a review but reveals no critical verdict. Its praise or complaints cannot be determined from the paywalled text. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/monsters-vs-aliens/4043683.article) ## Time Out — Derek Adams Rating 3/5. 31 March 2009. The review gives the film three out of five stars, indicating a middling verdict. The accessible page text does not reveal what the critic singled out for praise or complaint. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/monsters-vs-aliens-1) ## Slant Magazine — Nick Schager Rating 2/4. 26 March 2009. Schager finds the film mildly amusing but shallow, rushed, and lacking a coherent thematic backbone. He praises its technically adept, eye-popping 3D action, while noting its battles lack excitement and inventiveness. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/monsters-vs-aliens/) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 20 March 2009. McCarthy finds the film amusing and congenial but ultimately a moderate underachievement. He praises its 3-D spectacle and action, while faulting the monsters’ limited usefulness and the lack of bigger laughs or original invention. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2009/film/reviews/monsters-vs-aliens-1200474080/) ## Den of Geek — Glen Chapman Rating 3/5. 17 November 2009. Chapman finds the film thoroughly enjoyable, though its weak story and underdeveloped characters keep it from matching the best animated features. He praises the animation and vocal performances, particularly Kiefer Sutherland and Hugh Laurie. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/monsters-vs-aliens-dvd-review/) ## Paste — Josh Jackson Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 27 March 2009. Jackson finds the film lightweight amusement that gives children what they want, but offers little beyond that. He praises the well-chosen comic cast, particularly Seth Rogen and Stephen Colbert. [Read the review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/aliens/monsters-vs-aliens) ## Eye for Film — Tony Sullivan Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 1 April 2009. Sullivan finds the film merely OK and ultimately disappointing, despite expecting more from its promising comic premise. He praises the 3-D presentation and singles out Seth Rogen’s B.O.B. as the character who steals the picture. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/monsters-vs-aliens-film-review-by-tony-sullivan) ## Digital Spy — Simon Reynolds Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 29 March 2009. Reynolds finds the film an unsatisfying mishmash that sacrifices heart and soul for easy laughs. He praises its visual style and some engaging characters, but says its slick spectacle and clichéd story fail to deliver. [Read the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a150676/monsters-vs-aliens/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/monsters-vs-aliens.md