A large group of anthropomorphic animals gathered on stage around a transparent box
Film review

Sing

2016 · Directed by Garth Jennings · 1h 48m · OFNAA I

In a sentenceThese animals can sing; the difficulty is getting through everybody’s personal problems between numbers

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.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

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.

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.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

66
Positive
14
Mixed
6
Negative
3

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.

Little White Lies
27 January 2017 · 3/4/3 · Manuela Lazic
80

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 the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Trevor Johnston
80

Johnston finds the film warm-hearted rather than cynical. He praises the backstage dramas of the rival contestants.

Read the full review →
Variety
12 September 2016 · festival review · Peter Debruge
78*

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 the full review →
The Independent
26 January 2017 · ★★★☆☆ · Geoffrey Macnab
77*

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 the full review →
Empire
23 January 2017 · Chris Hewitt
70*

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 the full review →
Los Angeles Times
20 December 2016 · Katie Walsh
70*

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 the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

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 and is rated I by the OFNAA in Hong Kong. It is an animation and comedy film.
Where can I watch Sing in Hong Kong?
Sing is streaming on Amazon Prime Video in Hong Kong, and it is also available to rent from Apple TV from HK$28.00. 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 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 (2003, Fi1m 84): Young musicians find confidence through performance, with a welcome shortage of solemn encouragement. Then The Commitments (1991, Fi1m 82): Another hopeful musical ensemble, with sharper arguments and considerably less family-friendly language; and Ernest & Celestine (2012, Fi1m 84): For gentler animal animation, with a friendship given time to become convincing.

Cast

Awards

BAFTA Film Awards, 2016

Nominated
BAFTA's Children & Young People Award - Feature Film

If you liked this, try…

  1. The Muppet Movie (1979) · not on Fi1m yetAnother animal ensemble with show-business ambitions, better jokes and room for its songs.

  2. School of Rock (2003, Fi1m 84)Young musicians find confidence through performance, with a welcome shortage of solemn encouragement.

  3. Linda Linda Linda (2005) · not on Fi1m yetA Japanese school band prepares to perform; the rehearsals make the friendships matter.

  4. The Commitments (1991, Fi1m 82)Another hopeful musical ensemble, with sharper arguments and considerably less family-friendly language.

  5. Ernest & Celestine (2012, Fi1m 84)For gentler animal animation, with a friendship given time to become convincing.