Sing - Animals? Singing? What an Idea!
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
Obvious spoiler, but everyone gets a happy ending.
Would have been interesting if in the end one person does win the money and their life changes drastically while everyone else is stuck in their misfortune. Not a happy ending, but it would have made the film stand out more Im sure. (Beyond the ridiculous advertising budget it must have had, my god)
Would have been interesting if in the end one person does win the money and their life changes drastically while everyone else is stuck in their misfortune. Not a happy ending, but it would have made the film stand out more Im sure. (Beyond the ridiculous advertising budget it must have had, my god)
I don't think Sing is a 'good' movie, but I had a lot of fun with it. You pretty much know where it's going to end up, but there's just enough different to keep you entertained.
That and Seth MacFarlane does a really great Sinatra here (and everywhere else for that matter).
That and Seth MacFarlane does a really great Sinatra here (and everywhere else for that matter).
Okay, I have a question for anyone who has seen the movie. Obvious spoilers ahead:
When I saw that, I thought, 'Okay, we'll see how they deal with that at the end of the credits' but no! There was nothing. The story literally ends right there, and the implications of it are pretty dark. Was anyone else bothered by this?
Was anyone else bothered by how Mike's story ended? Because it's been bugging me ever since I saw the movie. He and his girlfriend escape in the cool car and you think they've gotten away from the bears, but then we see one of the bears slowly looming up behind them as they drive off.
When I saw that, I thought, 'Okay, we'll see how they deal with that at the end of the credits' but no! There was nothing. The story literally ends right there, and the implications of it are pretty dark. Was anyone else bothered by this?
Well, I understand the logic of it -Sniper Team 4 said:
- whatever happens next is going to be entirely unrelated to both the singing contest itself and all other characters involved. The implication is simply that Mike's big ego and even bigger mouth will, sooner or later, lead him to some kind of unpleasant end. (At this point, most likely sooner.)
And it can't really be argued that he doesn't have it coming - he basically spends the prize money, twice over, before he can even know for sure if he'll ever get his hands on it in the first place!
And it can't really be argued that he doesn't have it coming - he basically spends the prize money, twice over, before he can even know for sure if he'll ever get his hands on it in the first place!
Gotta take issue with the back stories not being 'real'. Pretty much every backstory in American Idol is exaggerated or even completely fabricated. Besides, just because something's fictional, doesn't mean you can't be invested in it - Forrest Gump and Shawshank are entirely fictional, yet many feel an attachment to the characters.
Just watch Cats Don't Dance instead. Better voice-acting, better music, and a more meaningful message about fighting discrimination.
That depends. Did you like Secret Life of Pets? Because if you did (I did), this movie is right up your alley. If you thought it was boring, a copy-paste of Toy Story, or you just don't like Illumination's movies, then stay far away.Hawki said:
Who else loathes the advertising for this? I haven't even seen the trailer, yet merely the posters make my blood boil. It looks like the most soulless, hacky, creatively bankrupt derivative twoddle imaginable. No theme, no substance, no passion, no story, no soul, just a bunch of wacky animals singing. "Hey, a fat pig is singing Lady Gaga. Ha ha isn't that funny ha ha!!!"
It's ads like those that make me thankful for general audiences films like Coraline, Curse of the Were-Rabbit and Spirited Away that actually have wit, creativity and love put into them.
It's ads like those that make me thankful for general audiences films like Coraline, Curse of the Were-Rabbit and Spirited Away that actually have wit, creativity and love put into them.
Thank you for reminding me that it's been a very long while since I've watched this movie, and that's a problem I must remedy immediately.Chronologist said:
My first thought was "Let's capitalize on Zootopia"bartholen said:
When I started hearing radio adverts about how critically acclaimed it is, I knew not to bother.
Well, I saw the film today (it was either this or Assassin's Creed), and it's the best film I've seen all year. Course it's only the second film I've seen all year, but while I liked Passengers, the boat's probably sailed on that one, and I've got a feeling that any discussion is going to turn into a shouting match with that film. Which is a shame, because there's a lot I think can be discussed that has nothing to do with the protagonist's actions.
But anyway, Sing. It's...good. Probably better than the sum of its parts, and it's flawed in a key way - there's far too many characters, so while each character does get an arc (albeit ones you can see a mile away), a lot of steps in said arcs feel unfilled. I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of this film ended up on the cutting room floor, because there's certain events that go unremarked on. Including:
Still, it's enjoyable. It could have been obnoxious, given its use of pop songs, but it pulls it off. What it also pulls off is a constant sense of flow - I can't really divide this film into a traditional three act structure, because while I'm sure those distinctions exist somewhere, the film feels too...'fluid,' to earn those markers. At the least, I enjoyed it much more than SLOP (heck, I'd much rather this film have a sequel than SLOP), and I feel that Sing is to Illumination what Epic is to Blue Sky - a film that isn't going to win any points for originality, but executes itself well enough that it doesn't matter. Though, Sing is the more creative of the two IMO, but as for what others have said:
It is similar in that the film accounts for animal physiology (e.g. the animals are all to scale with one another), and the animals do have roles that fit said physiology (e.g. like Zootopia, a lot of the cops are rhinos), but it's not meant as commentary and doesn't touch the subject. Also, the city the film's set in is apparently based on Los Angeles, whereas Zootopia always struck me as kind of harkening to New York (though as has been pointed out, it's more like Disneyland).
But anyway, Sing. It's...good. Probably better than the sum of its parts, and it's flawed in a key way - there's far too many characters, so while each character does get an arc (albeit ones you can see a mile away), a lot of steps in said arcs feel unfilled. I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of this film ended up on the cutting room floor, because there's certain events that go unremarked on. Including:
-When Rosita comes home and finds her family tangled up, no-one comments on it. Like, at all. The next time we see them they're at the show, and similarly, I have the feeling may have wanted to push sexual tension between Rosita and Gunter, but it barely surfaces.
-Does Ash get back together with Lance or not? It hints at it, but nothing happens.
-Does Johnny ever visit his dad?
-Does Mikey escape the bears? And on the subject, why'd his girlfriend even bail him out? We barely see them interacting with one another, he showers her with riches, but why's she putting her life on the line for a guy who nearly got her killed in the club?
-Everyone keeps saying that Buster's shows failed by virtue of being bad shows/choices, but it never explains why or how.
-Come to think of it, how the heck does his dad save up enough money by washing cars to buy a theatre?
-Does Ash get back together with Lance or not? It hints at it, but nothing happens.
-Does Johnny ever visit his dad?
-Does Mikey escape the bears? And on the subject, why'd his girlfriend even bail him out? We barely see them interacting with one another, he showers her with riches, but why's she putting her life on the line for a guy who nearly got her killed in the club?
-Everyone keeps saying that Buster's shows failed by virtue of being bad shows/choices, but it never explains why or how.
-Come to think of it, how the heck does his dad save up enough money by washing cars to buy a theatre?
Still, it's enjoyable. It could have been obnoxious, given its use of pop songs, but it pulls it off. What it also pulls off is a constant sense of flow - I can't really divide this film into a traditional three act structure, because while I'm sure those distinctions exist somewhere, the film feels too...'fluid,' to earn those markers. At the least, I enjoyed it much more than SLOP (heck, I'd much rather this film have a sequel than SLOP), and I feel that Sing is to Illumination what Epic is to Blue Sky - a film that isn't going to win any points for originality, but executes itself well enough that it doesn't matter. Though, Sing is the more creative of the two IMO, but as for what others have said:
I noticed it as well, as laid out in my own comments. I'm...really not sure about it. Mikey's an arse, sure, but he's not so much an arse that he deserves to be eaten.Sniper Team 4 said:
There's similarities, but I think it's unfair to compare the two, or at least, treating the comparison as the be all and end all. Zootopia's certainly the superior film, but this film would have had to have been in production well before Zootopia was released.Eclipse Dragon said:
It is similar in that the film accounts for animal physiology (e.g. the animals are all to scale with one another), and the animals do have roles that fit said physiology (e.g. like Zootopia, a lot of the cops are rhinos), but it's not meant as commentary and doesn't touch the subject. Also, the city the film's set in is apparently based on Los Angeles, whereas Zootopia always struck me as kind of harkening to New York (though as has been pointed out, it's more like Disneyland).