---
title: "Sing"
year: 2016
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/sing"
fi1m_id: "sing"
imdb_id: "tt3470600"
tmdb_id: 335797
wikidata_id: "Q20762698"
fi1m_score: 70
critics_score: 66
critics_reviews: 23
published: "2026-09-24T03:19:26.757428+00:00"
updated: "2026-09-24T03:19:26.965657+00:00"
region: "TH"
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."
---

# Sing (2016)

Directed by Garth Jennings · 1h 48m · Animation, Comedy, Family, Music

## Identity

Sing

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/sing
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** sing
- **IMDb ID:** tt3470600
- **TMDB ID:** 335797
- **Wikidata ID:** Q20762698
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3470600/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/335797, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20762698

**Fi1m score: 70** · Critics 66 from 23 reviews

*In a sentence:* These animals can sing; the difficulty is getting through everybody’s personal problems between numbers

> Garth Jennings’s singing-animal contest is warm, tuneful and too busy for its own good. The songs and performers earn an enjoyable evening, though the separate stories need more time than the film gives them.

## Synopsis

At the Moon Theatre, a singing contest brings together Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) and a crowd of animal hopefuls. Rosita (Reese Witherspoon), Ash (Scarlett Johansson) and Johnny (Taron Egerton) each have their own reasons for wanting a place in the show. The auditions bring together different musical styles, while the contestants’ lives outside the theatre begin to complicate the preparations. Getting everyone on stage means finding space for rival ambitions, backstage dramas and the personal troubles that follow the singers into rehearsals.

## Review

*Sing* is an enjoyable family film that keeps interrupting its good singers to check on too many separate stories. Garth Jennings, who writes and directs, approaches the talent-contest formula with warmth and enough musical enthusiasm to make its familiarity tolerable. We recommend it if singing animals sound like a reasonable evening, with some patience required for the crowded middle. The pleasure comes from watching the performers have a go, without needing the script to make their troubles especially surprising.

The auditions are where that approach works most efficiently. Gregory Perler’s editing moves briskly between performers and musical styles, letting the changes supply much of the comedy without pausing to explain each joke. We laughed at the audition montage because the abrupt switches keep upsetting our expectations of what we will hear next. The sequence has the confidence to be a collection of small pleasures. Elsewhere, the same hurry becomes a nuisance when a character needs more than a quick introduction.

Taron Egerton’s Johnny benefits from singing that is worth listening to for its own sake; the attraction does not depend on recognising the voice behind the character. Reese Witherspoon’s Rosita and Scarlett Johansson’s Ash also help distinguish a cast that could easily become a queue of famous names. There is enough personality in the performances to make us willing to follow the separate stories. Jennings does not always repay that willingness with enough attention to each of them.

The problem is how often the film moves on just as somebody starts to become interesting. Jennings gives the contestants reasons to want their moment on stage, but the crowded script allows too little time for those reasons to develop beyond the familiar. The backstage complications interrupt the songs without making us care much more about the contestants. A smaller group might have made its 108 minutes feel less hurried.

Eric Guillon’s production design makes the theatre a welcoming place to spend time, although the animal population is more memorable than their surroundings. There is fun in the simple sight of these creatures performing, and the film has the good sense to enjoy it. We would have liked their being animals to matter more to the stories being told. For an animated comedy, it is surprisingly content to borrow the routines of a conventional backstage musical.

Joby Talbot’s score sits alongside familiar songs that are asked to do much of the emotional work. The score is serviceable, but it is not what stays with us. The song choices welcome different musical styles rather than treating every performer as a version of the same act. Yet some numbers are cut short so quickly that recognition has to stand in for the pleasure of hearing a performance develop. When the singing is this appealing, that impatience is frustrating.

Still, there is kindness here towards people who want a chance to be heard, and it survives some clumsy plotting. The jokes and voices provide enough company to get through the less engaging stretches without making the evening feel like work. Choose it for a family singalong rather than a story that will take anybody by surprise.

*Fi1m score 70, published 24 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

Most critics find Sing an enjoyable family film, with praise clustering around its musical performances, varied song choices and lively audition sequence. The warmer reviews also value the contestants’ backstage troubles and personal reasons for singing, finding enough warmth in the characters to carry a familiar talent-contest story. Several critics judge the sentimentality earned, particularly when the performances are given space to supply the emotion.

The reservations concern predictable plotting, crowded storytelling and characters whose problems receive too little attention. The spread is wide: some critics find modest pleasures in the formula, while others regard it as commercially calculated and empty. IndieWire takes the harsher view, praising the singing voices but finding the character work hurried and the musical performances chopped up. Den of Geek offers a clear contrast, finding the story cohesive and the characters’ motivations emotionally grounded. Even among supporters, enthusiasm for the music often exceeds admiration for the script.

## Straight answers

**Is Sing worth watching?**

*Sing* is worth watching for families who enjoy singing animals and a broad mix of songs; we score it 70 out of 100. The warm performances and brisk audition comedy carry an enjoyable evening, though too many separate personal dramas crowd the middle and interrupt the music.

**How long is Sing, and what is it rated?**

*Sing* runs 1h 48m. It is an animation and comedy film.

**Where can I watch Sing in Thailand?**

*Sing* is streaming on Amazon Prime Video in Thailand, and it is also available to rent from Apple TV from ฿99.00. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How does Sing compare to The School of Rock?**

*Sing* offers animated talent-contest fun, but we recommend [*The School of Rock*](https://film.one/film/the-school-of-rock) for better-earned laughs and affection as young musicians find confidence through performing. Both tell familiar stories with warmth; *Sing* suits a family singalong, while *The School of Rock* gives Jack Black space to be ridiculous without making fools of the children.

**What should I watch after Sing?**

After *Sing*, try [*School of Rock*](https://film.one/film/the-school-of-rock) (2003, Fi1m 84): Young musicians find confidence through performance, with a welcome shortage of solemn encouragement. Then [*The Commitments*](https://film.one/film/the-commitments) (1991, Fi1m 82): Another hopeful musical ensemble, with sharper arguments and considerably less family-friendly language; and [*Ernest & Celestine*](https://film.one/film/ernest-and-celestine) (2012, Fi1m 84): For gentler animal animation, with a friendship given time to become convincing.

### Reviews we read (23)

- **Little White Lies**, Manuela Lazic (3/4/3): Lazic finds the film a modest but engaging family feature with a hopeful human message. She especially praises its thoughtful treatment of varied musical styles and its nuanced character experiences. [Read](https://lwlies.com/reviews/sing)
- **Radio Times**, Trevor Johnston (4/5): Johnston finds the film warm-hearted rather than cynical. He praises the backstage dramas of the rival contestants. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-00y96x/sing/)
- **Variety**, Peter Debruge (78/100, inferred): Debruge finds “Sing” massively entertaining despite a wobbly script and familiar animated-film clichés. He especially praises the rapid-fire audition sequence and the lively musical performances. [Read](https://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/sing-review-illumination-entertainment-1201857701/)
- **The Independent**, Geoffrey Macnab (★★★☆☆): Macnab finds Sing cheerful and enjoyable, though its story becomes predictable and clumsy. He praises the energetic audition montage, visual gags and well-chosen music. [Read](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/film-reviews-roundup-denial-christine-sing-a7545151.html)
- **Empire**, Chris Hewitt (70/100, inferred): The critic finds the film overly hectic but ultimately infectious and immensely likeable. They praise Jennings’ love of music, which infuses the film, and its unexpected storytelling quirks. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/sing-review/)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Katie Walsh (70/100, inferred): Walsh finds the film cute, funny, and entertaining, though its many character stories make the plot feel overly busy. She praises the catchy soundtrack and the fun of its singing-animal performances. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-sing-review-20161216-story.html)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Leslie Felperin (70/100, inferred): Felperin finds the film corny but ultimately joyful, with its final stretch of performances making the sentimentality work. She especially praises the vocal performances and the visual and musical pleasures of the show. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/sing-review-927674/)
- **Screen Daily**, David D'Arcy (64/100, inferred): The page identifies this as a Toronto review, but the review text is behind a paywall. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined from the available text. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/sing-toronto-review/5109357.article)
- **The New York Times** (64/100, inferred): The review text is unavailable, so its verdict cannot be determined. No praise or complaint can be reliably identified from the accessible page. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/movies/sing-review-matthew-mcconaughey.html)
- **The Guardian**, Jordan Hoffman (55/100, inferred): Hoffman finds the film formulaic and uninspiring as cinema, though its familiar pop-song formula works on its own terms. He praises the animation in the flooding-theatre scene and the comic car-wash sequence. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/12/sing-review-scarlett-johansson-toronto-film-festival-matthew-mcconaughey)
- **Vulture**, Sarah Miller (50/100, inferred): The critic finds Sing charming and entertaining, but ultimately bland and lacking a reason for its animal characters. She praises its appealing performers and crowd-pleasing musical moments while faulting its formulaic, unoriginal approach. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2016/12/review-sing-is-charming-but-bland.html)
- **Slant Magazine**, Kenji Fujishima (1.5/4): Fujishima finds the film shallow, commercially driven, and lacking in artistic passion. He singles out the inventive breakfast-making gag, while criticizing the thin characterizations and the film’s use of musical theater as an excuse for an animated singing contest. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/sing/)
- **IndieWire**, David Ehrlich (D-): Ehrlich pans the film as cynical, soulless, and creatively bankrupt. He praises the cast’s singing voices, especially Taron Egerton’s, while criticizing the hurried character work and chopped-up musical performances. [Read](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/sing-review-matthew-mcconaughey-illumination-1201728515/)
- **Deadline**, Pete Hammond (85/100, inferred): Hammond calls the film a genuine crowd-pleaser with heart and holiday appeal. He particularly praises its lively music, first-rate animation, and Jennifer Hudson’s showstopping performance. [Read](https://deadline.com/2016/12/sing-review-music-movie-jennifer-hudson-stevie-wonder-ariana-grande-video-1201864884/)
- **Den of Geek**, Simon Brew (4/5): The critic finds Sing a warm, enjoyable animated adventure with a cohesive story. He especially praises its likeable characters and their varied, emotionally grounded reasons for singing. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/sing-review/)
- **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (80/100, inferred): The critic finds the film a charming, fun-hearted take on the talent-contest formula. They single out its humor and the lively characters for praise. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/sing-2016-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray)
- **Consequence**, Blake Goble (75/100, inferred): Goble finds Sing a spirited, enjoyable family film despite its familiar plot and commercial polish. He especially praises its lively cast of characters and the enthusiasm the filmmaking brings to its musical performances. [Read](https://consequence.net/2016/12/film-review-sing/)
- **The Playlist** (75/100, inferred): The headline gives the film a positive, crowd-pleasing verdict. It singles out its pitch-perfect animation, though the blocked page prevents confirming further details. [Read](https://theplaylist.net/sing-pitch-perfect-crowd-pleasing-animation-thats-compliment-toronto-review-20160911/)
- **The Wrap** (75/100, inferred): The critic finds the film uneven at first but ultimately rousing and genuinely emotional. They single out its emotional final stretch and the effectiveness of its pop songs. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/sing-review-illumination-animated-musical/)
- **/Film**, Angie Han (6.0 out of 10): Han finds the film a light, sweet crowdpleaser that is fun but quickly forgotten. She praises the varied song choices and musical performances, while criticizing underdeveloped character storylines. [Read](https://www.slashfilm.com/546478/sing-review/)
- **NME** (65/100, inferred): The review finds the film thin on substance but ultimately entertaining, with a surprisingly delightful ending. It praises the finale’s emotional payoffs and energetic song-and-dance spectacle. [Read](https://www.nme.com/reviews/sing-film-review-1959971)
- **Collider**, Matt Goldberg (C): Goldberg finds the film passable but overly content to favor popularity over originality. He criticizes the brief, fragmented use of familiar pop songs, which rarely lets the music tell a story. [Read](https://collider.com/sing-review-matthew-mcconaughey/)
- **HeyUGuys** (30/100, inferred): The critic finds Sing formulaic and lacking heart, and expects viewers seeking a more compelling story to be disappointed. They praise Leslie Jones’s comic performance as Ms. Crawl as the film’s most consistently funny element. [Read](https://www.heyuguys.com/sing-review/)

## Details

- **Director:** Garth Jennings
- **Director:** Garth Jennings
- **Writer:** Garth Jennings
- **Editor:** Gregory Perler
- **Music:** Joby Talbot
- **Production design:** Eric Guillon
- **Producer:** Janet Healy, Chris Meledandri
- **Cast:** Matthew McConaughey as Buster Moon (voice); Reese Witherspoon as Rosita (voice); Seth MacFarlane as Mike (voice); Scarlett Johansson as Ash (voice); John C. Reilly as Eddie (voice); Taron Egerton as Johnny (voice); Tori Kelly as Meena (voice); Jennifer Saunders as Nana (voice)
- **Runtime:** 1h 48m
- **First release (Canada):** 11 September 2016
- **Genres:** Animation, Comedy, Family, Music
- **Budget:** $75 million
- **Box office:** $634 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIgXWuLQPFY

## Where to watch in Thailand

- Amazon Prime Video: streaming
- Apple TV: rent ฿99.00, hd
- Apple TV: buy ฿299.00, sd

*Checked 2026-09-24.*

Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, ID, IE, IL, IN, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, SI, SK, TH, TR, UA, US, VN, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- BAFTA Film Awards 2016: BAFTA's Children & Young People Award - Feature Film (nominated)

## If you liked this

- *The Muppet Movie* (1979): Another animal ensemble with show-business ambitions, better jokes and room for its songs.
- *School of Rock* (2003), Fi1m 84: Young musicians find confidence through performance, with a welcome shortage of solemn encouragement. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-school-of-rock.md)
- *Linda Linda Linda* (2005): A Japanese school band prepares to perform; the rehearsals make the friendships matter.
- *The Commitments* (1991), Fi1m 82: Another hopeful musical ensemble, with sharper arguments and considerably less family-friendly language. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-commitments.md)
- *Ernest & Celestine* (2012), Fi1m 84: For gentler animal animation, with a friendship given time to become convincing. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/ernest-and-celestine.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/sing