SING (2016) REVIEWED
“Sing” is one of the final films of 2016 that I have to cover. This is when readers ask about where are my Rogue One, La La Land, Jackie, etc reviews. They are coming as part of Best of 2016 coverage. For now, we tackle the second best Illumination movie of 2016. If you’ve seen “Cats Don’t Dance”, then you’ve seen this movie. If you are under 20 years old, then this film and its updated song library will be up your alley. So, there’s that.
Garth Jennings returns to directing for the first time in a decade and this is the result. I’ve been a huge fan of Jennings since his “Hammer & Tongs” days, but what kept the man away for a decade. The upstart director left the cinema on a high note with “Son of Rambow” and then fell away. While this isn’t a 100% Jennings vision, there are quirks here that favor the British live theater tradition over American entertainment leanings. But, all of that is quickly wiped away with the same hand that whips out “Carry That Weight” when needed to punch up the drama.
You’ve seen this movie before in a variety of ways. Whether it was human, cartoon or Muppet, everyone can cake walk this feature to completion. So, why did this film feel like three episodes of a dreary animated series? Familiarity breeds discontent in a crowded film season. As such, keep an eye on the children that choose this movie over “Moana”, “Rogue One” or even “Fantastic Beasts”. While those films are just as familiar, they try to push the narrative into different arenas. “Sing” does nothing of the sort.
Just as tiring as the singing competition that dot the airwaves, “Sing” assaults audiences with the same blandness. While I commented on “Trolls” lack of narrative, I can’t say the same for “Sing”. The narrative for “Sing” is that they can keep putting on the same show regardless of the circumstances. The audience doesn’t matter so much as forcing their work onto anyone that can hear/see/experience them. It’s quite bizarre to see a movie suffer from Middle Child Syndrome.
- 1 hr and 48 minutes