'T2: Trainspotting' Review

Twenty years have passed since Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) took off with the drug money, leaving his friends behind. Renton is now back after living in Holland and Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller) and worst of all, Begbie (Robert Carlyle) are all still in Edinburgh as Renton looks to start his life again in the Scottish capital.

Danny Boyle and the original cast are back after 20 years to build upon the legacy of 1996's 'Trainspotting'. The original 'Trainspotting' is a huge deal in Scotland with it being a staple in British film over the last 20 years. The film is adored by both adults who seen it when it first came out and youths who seen it after they were born - like me. Whenever a sequel comes along many years after the first, there is huge fear that it will be worthless and a complete cash grab - see last year's 'Zoolander 2' and 'Independence Day: Resurgence'. Thankfully for viewers, Danny Boyle shows filmmakers how to carry on a story decades after the original.

The feeling from the original 'Trainspotting' is kept the same as Boyle brings a very similar shooting style as editor Jon Harris cuts the film much like the first film. The cast plays a huge role in the overall feeling as yet again they are portrayed wonderfully. With it being such a long time between the films, you can easily lose that feeling and it can become sad to see these characters once again. T2 has no problem with that as the characters you love from the original return and only build upon the greatness from the first. We don't see the characters rehash what they did in the first one, it's entirely new stories that are being created and new personal traits that are being developed. Of course, there are the classic traits from Spud, Sick Boy and Begbie to make it seem familiar but it isn;t completely rehashed and is kept fresh. Bremner's character Spud perhaps has the perfect blends as he still has the personality that you fell in love with at first but has enough new about him that allows the character to progress.

Spud actually propels himself into becoming a very key and main character in the film, unlike he did in the first film. The character is made more interesting due to the time gap with him having high and lows as he tries to find himself whilst Renton has gone. Sick Boy realigns himself with old best friend Renton yet again and similar to the first, you are not sure whether you can trust him or not. This becomes a key part of the story as 20 years has past but the relationship has not really. There is that close bond but you can't help but feel that there is something brewing within. The stand out performance yet again comes from Robert Carlyle as Begbie. Begbie is one of the most unlikeable film characters but you can't help but keep watching him as he is so entertaining and captivating. Carlyle captures the characteristics perfectly as the psychotic hardman who you enjoy watching but know is an awful human being. Ewan McGregor also shines as Renton who seemingly has everything returning back home but is still looking to fill that void and fit in once returning. Renton is arguably the least interesting character in the film but excels as the main character as he is the glue within the group, holding everything together.

In essence, the main theme throughout the film is regret. The regret of not sorting your life out, not having that family or job that you hoped for. Each character goes through this and it is something that the audience can really relate to. As the first film is 20 years old now, there will be people all over the world who had hoped to have done things differently. This provides a very strong point for those who have lived their life but not so much for those with life in front of them. However, there is still plenty for those younger to enjoy without getting the full experience as perhaps the likes of their parents would.

As a Scotsman, the film's comedy and humour work perfectly well for me and from the audience's reaction, them too. There are so many things that happen throughout the film that is genuinely realistic which make the film incredibly funny as you know people exactly like those portrayed in the film. The social issues within the film are executed incredibly well but again, this may not have the same effect on those not from the U.K or even Scotland alone. The likes of the loyalist pub scene may seem very odd to those not familiar with Scottish history and how it is considered in the present day. As someone from here, the jokes and scenes that are Scottish-specific could not have been executed any better.

'T2' does what a returning franchise should do. It brings back the characters but makes them fell fresh. It doesn't reuse the same story and shows a clear change in the characters lives. The fact that the film is highly entertaining is a huge factor that many sequels miss out on too. 'T2' is not quite the hit that the first was but is still very enjoyable with tamer themes and incidents throughout the film.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'T2: Trainspotting'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing the movie or not. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor

'Denial' Review

When university lecturer Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) includes Historian David Irving (Timothy Spall) in her book about Holocaust deniers, he accuses her of defamation and libel sparking a legal court case. It is Lipstadt's job to prove that the holocaust did indeed happen as she assembles a team to make sure that the truth is known.

It's utterly baffling to think that somebody would try and make the allegation that something so awful like the holocaust never happened. That's the stand that protagonist Deborah Lipstadt takes as David Irving makes this absurd point against her works spawning this one-sided courtroom drama. The subject matter allows this drama to work only so far. Spall's Irving becomes an instantly unlikeable villain due to what is at stake and the subject matter brings some very emotional scenes. The trip to Auschwitz and the pleas from those who survived the terrible conditions are enough to make the audience feel for those involved in those awful crimes.

As for the cast, they do very well with what the film allows them to do. Weisz's character does very well, showcasing great emotion and will to keep quiet when she really wants to give Irving a piece of her mind. Weisz is incredibly likeable and finds herself a bit taken back at first but then proceeds to show great courage, passion and determination as the film progresses. Spall is great as Irving, bringing a squirmy, unlikeable character, much like that of his 'Harry Potter' character Peter Pettigrew. Spall is charismatic and brings across a genuine, authentic feeling that this man believed that the holocaust was an agenda completely made up. The two leads are the standouts by far and really carry this drama.

Despite the best efforts of the cast, there simply isn't enough content within this film to last a feature length film. The film starts off fairly well with the first confrontation between Lipstadt and Irving and from there, you expect the film to really kick into gear. The case is put forward but the film proceeds to jump days, months and years ahead as the film moves very slowly to the eventual cases. Yes, this may make this film more realistic due to how something like this can be drawn out. But that isn't necessarily the best thing for a feature length movie as it moves without many things happening or tension being created. Slow burn dramas can be executed very well as long as you feel it building up or that if it is interesting or engaging enough. The film would be much better suited to a shorter format, like a made for TV short film or a Netflix special.

The story doesn't really allow for the courtroom drama to have both sides going back at each other. Due to this, the film loses some of its drama and tension as it doesn't allow both sides to make arguments that make it look as if one side is edging in front of the other. The eventual case is all one sided and we are only given information that has not been showcased, mentioned or even hinted at before during the film. The reveals could've been handled much better to create a more impactful and shocking look at what Irving has done. Instead, it was just mildly effective. There's nothing game-changing in this drama in what felt quite safe considering the subject matter. There could've been a lot more done with this film but instead, there's a lot of meetings, jogging and not enough twists and turns.

A film based on a recent court case with such a serious subject should have been a lot more impactful. There are moments in the film that do make the most out of the subject but there simply isn't enough for this film to be memorable. Although there isn't anything done terribly and the film has some great performances, the film overall fails to deliver the impact that it was looking to do so.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'Denial'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing this movie or not. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor

'Hacksaw Ridge' Review

The Second World War is well underway and young men are signing up to help protect their country, including young Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield). Doss is like no other, though, he is a strong, devoted Christian who will not carry a weapon nevermind take a life. Doss is cleared to go onto the battlefield without a weapon, providing service as a medic, as he looks to save people in this time of mass killing.

Mel Gibson's fifth feature film as a director brings us a different kind of war film. Instead of focussing completely on the killing sacrificial side, Gibson opts to bring the true story of one of the war's greatest heroes who didn't take a single life.

Desmond Doss was a devoted, seventh day Adventist who had no problem at all with serving his country during the war. A kind spirit who only wanted to help those in need rather than to cause harm. Doss is portrayed wonderfully by Andrew Garfield who shines despite seeming overly quirky at the start of the film. This seems to be the case for the full film as Doss seems incredibly cheesy at first, as does his reason and actions leading to his strong beliefs. There is no worry as there is a clear progression through the story, becoming more serious and emotional, adding more information to resolve any previous gripes. Garfield has cemented himself as a genuine, top quality actor this year with great work in this years 'Silence' and of course for his Oscar-nominated performance in 'Hacksaw' which is fully deserved. 

The character Doss is a very intriguing and interesting one. You feel sorry for him simply due to him leaving those who he loves to go to the war. Once he gets to training, he's berated and called a coward due to his beliefs, leading to him getting some very harsh treatment from his comrades. Doss' determination and spirit doesn't crack one bit as he continues to strive to do what he signed up for and eventually, to prove everyone wrong about him. The spirit of Doss brings heart to the film and to a genre which is generally associated mainly with brutality. The film captures Doss' beliefs perfectly, bringing some truly incredible scenes that are uplifting and incredibly humane. The scene where Doss spends the night alone on Hacksaw single-handedly saving soldiers - both American and Japanese - is perfectly handled. The actions, cinematography and score all combine perfectly to create something special and although no words are said, the message is loud and clear. It's scenes like this that make you wish Gibson had made more movies by now as he has a clear talent for creating inspirational, impactful and emotional large scale movies.

As it is still a war movie, the casualties are still very high and Gibson is relentless with making the war seem as brutal as it was. From rat feasting on corpses to maggots infesting skulls, slit throats to headshots and stabbings to suicides, the cost of war isn't covered up or romanticised at all. The first action scenes show the brutality of the war perfectly and how it isn't giving any mercy to anyone as many men are gunned down instantly in brutal fashion. The action is second to none with large battlefields showing the amount of destruction caused in only a couple of minutes. Gibson's direction in these scenes is incredible as he draws out plenty of emotion whilst showcasing the sacrifice but in a truly terrifying way. 

Hugo Weaving finds himself very unlucky to find himself without an Academy Award nomination. As Doss' father and army veteran come drunk, Weaving is incredible in every scene he is in. Whether he is at the graves of his fallen friends, scowling his sons or being pivotal to Desmond's duty, Weaving steals the show. It is a travesty that he hasn't gained his first Oscar nomination for his role in 'Hacksaw Ridge'. Teresa Palmer was criminally underused in this film as Doss' wife Dorothy. The first act follows the building romance between the two before Doss signs up and then for a short time during his court trial. We never return to her again as the film misses a huge chance to create a powerful and emotional moment by reuniting the two. Vince Vaughn also shines as the Seargent troubled with training the new recruits. His first scene in the film is gold and allows Vaughn to showcase his abilities as a comic actor but in a very serious manner. This is Vaughn's best performance to date and was highly enjoyable to watch throughout his moments in the film.

'Hacksaw Ridge' is most definitely one of the best films of the year, drawing great performances and emotion from those involved. This is a special kind of story in a brutal genre that should be appreciated by all.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'Hacksaw Ridge'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing the film or not which I recommend you do so. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor

'xXx: Return of Xander Cage' Review

A deadly weapon known as the Pandora Box has been discovered, which allows those who control it to manoeuvre and crash satellites that orbit the earth. To combat this, Xander Cage (Vin Diesel) is brought back along with a team filled with thrill seekers to get this weapon before it is catastrophic.

The 'xXx' franchise returns after 12 years in a comeback that nobody was really clamouring for. The previous films have failed to create a huge impact in the action genre or in many people's memories. 'Return of Xander Cage' most definitely isn't a genre defining or revolutionary movie but it sure is a whole load of fun.

Vin Diesel returns to the franchise in a fairly similar role to that of his character in a fast-paced, ridiculous action series, Dominic Toretto (Fast & Furious franchise). Diesel's Xander Cage trades Toretto's morals about family for a group of lunatics with unique deadly skills. Diesel himself is the lead but similar to the 'Fast' series, he sees himself become lost in the pecking order due to more interesting, badass and entertaining characters. For the most part, Diesel is outshone by recent 'Rogue One' star Donnie Yen who outdoes Diesel in every aspect especially in the ass kicking and tongue in cheek lines. 

The film can boast some of the craziest and most obscene action scenes of not only the year but of all time. There's skiing in the jungle, surfing on a motorbike, fighting whilst floating in zero gravity and insane dives from high distances. The film is filled with crazy stunts and action that isn't realistic whatsoever but is it entertaining? Absolutely. If you can suspend your belief and just have sit back and enjoy these scenes then you will have fun for sure. Whether that's from the great spectacles or laughing at completely unbelievable events - you will for sure at a comeback within the film. The action scenes in 'xXx' are actually well shot, giving enough room to see what is happening without shaky cam and an unnecessary amount of cuts. This is most beneficial to the fight scenes which allow the likes of Donnie Yen and Tony Jaa to really show off their skills in some very well choreographed and executed scenes.

The main strength of this film really is that it doesn't take itself serious at all. With the action in it, it cannot afford to do so, otherwise, it just becomes hilarious the whole way through. The cast isn't made up of phenomenal actors who will deliver jaw-dropping performances. There are cheesy lines and humour that make this film feel like it would fit in with 80/90's action movies of the same style. The film's script, although not serious, isn't great with some of the one-liners not coming off well at all, making it incredibly cheesy at times. Nina Dobrev's character is the perfect example of this as the writing for her character at times is even too ridiculous for this movie. The script's writing of the female characters is fairly questionable at times as well. There are moments where the likes of Deepika Padukone and Ruby Rose seem like genuine badass characters but for every scene where it showcases that, there are two making women just object for men. The opportunity to create some female heroes is held back due to this which is a shame as it is an area they really could've capitalised on. Some of the crew also take a backseat especially the likes of Tony Jaa who could've been used to much better effect. In saying that, the film doesn't overdo it with its characters and doesn't try to give them all storylines. It keeps its story and focus fairly basic and sticks to it rather well.

At this time of the year when Oscar-bait films are filling up cinema schedules, it is nice to have a little change. Is 'xXx' a good movie? No, not really. But is it exciting and fun? Yes. Sometimes it's good to just go to the cinema and have a real good time and 'xXx' most definitely brings that. If you're looking for something to just switch off and enjoy watching, then this is worth checking out. As a form of entertainment, this most definitely succeeds. On technical aspects, not so much. 'xXx: Return of Xander Cage' is most definitely a guilty pleasure.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'xXx: Return of Xander Cage'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing the movie and that you have a great time if you choose to see it. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor

'Jackie' Review

After her husband was famously shot dead, Jackie Kennedy (Natalie Portman) has an interview discussing her life since the assassination. During this, she recalls events before and straight after her world was turned upside down. 

In recent years, we have been treated to many great biopics with the likes of 'Steve Jobs' and 'Selma' being huge critical successes. Big strengths in these types of films are to create a charismatic figure that you want to know more about and that will really grab a hold of your attention. A biopic has to be interesting at least to keep its audience's attention whilst showing the life of a person or covering an event. In saying this, 'Jackie' is about as dull and boring as a biopic can be.

'Jackie' showcases the wife of former President of the United States John F. Kennedy. We get to see Jackie carry out an interview with the press weeks after the funeral, the immediate aftermath of JFK's death and a TV episode where cameras were invited personally into the White House. As the film bounces between these events, after about 20 minutes, you start to realise that there is nothing of interest within the film. The film is incredibly slow as we see Jackie mess around with the reporter, telling what he can report and what he can't. The aftermath is basically Jackie planning a funeral but she just can't decide what she wants the ceremony to be like, how interesting?! The tour that Jackie gives a TV network is equally as engaging and it doesn't get any better as the film goes on. There are some good details at times, mainly about Jackie thoughts about her late husband. Other than that, its secretive smoking and constantly changing her mind. A problem also lies in the fact that there is no clear story within this. There's not a build up to anything meaning no drama, no tension, no emotion and nothing of true significance. The conversations aren't interesting as are none of the events.

As far as actually teaching the audience about Jackie, the film fails so even in doing that. As the film draws to a close, Billy Crudup's journalist character speaks about how Jackie is a national treasure and that due to her actions after her husband's death, she was like a mother to the entire nation. The film wraps up as if it had just shown many great things that she did. The problem is, the film doesn't do so at all. There's nothing here that makes this character seem great or a big deal at all. She was a president's wife and that's about it according to this film. It shows her to be indecisive, unconfident and just plain. Combining the entertainment and educational aspects within a biopic, this really isn't any more entertaining than a documentary would be. A documentary would also offer a better and more in-depth look at the character, bringing an all round better experience.

Despite the clear problems with the monotonous story, credit must be given where credit is due. If it weren't for Natalie Portman, this film would have been a lot worse. Portman does well in her role and does shine at times, especially during the touring scenes. Jackie seems to be very timid in front of the camera and Portman is very consistent in showing this to a high level. Her accent doesn't seem to follow the same consistency but that may be down to the differences in the three separate parts of the film. Portman is the standout performance in the film, although it is questionable to whether it is Best Actress worthy especially with Amy Adams missing out entirely.

'Jackie' also gained nominations for Best Costume Design and Best Original Score. Had the film taken place in a few more different locations, then it may have easily picked up a nomination for Set Design too. 'Jackie' is a very aesthetically pleasing film, looking stunning in all aspects. The camera does capture some beautiful looking moments which allows Portman to showcase her talents without even having to say anything. There are no faults within the filmmaking as it jumps between looking classic to present at the time very smoothly. The score does really help elevate the film at times, especially that of the actual funeral where it is just haunting and crafted perfectly well. It does add a bit more to the dour and dull scenes, although the music is fairly depressing at times, leading to you becoming even more fed up with the film inadvertently.

There are many great biopics out there and 'Jackie' unfortunately does not add to them. This film is so dull and lacks anything remotely interesting or intriguing. Sure it is pleasing to the eye but underneath that is ultimately nothing. Very disappointing.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'Jackie'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing the movie or not! Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor

'Lion' Review

5-year-old Indian child Saroo (Sunny Pawar) follows his older brother Guddu into Calcutta in order for Guddu to do some night work. This would be the last time he'd see his brother as the two are separated, with Saroo ending up on a train, travelling for days and taking him thousands of miles away from home. Twenty-Five years later, Saroo (Dev Patel) looks to find his way back home in hopes to find his family.

The trailers for this drama would suggest that Dev Patel is on a long and tireless search to be reunited with his family. The reality, though, is that that aspect only takes up about a third of the 2-hour runtime. Instead, the first hour is the story of a young Saroo, played magnificently by young actor Sunny Pawar. Pawar is a cute, innocent little boy who you wouldn't want anything bad happen to as he tries to help out his family in any way possible, despite being at such a young age. Director Garth Davis takes his time building up this young character as he doesn't rush any detail. The story is handled with care as we see how terrifying the streets of India must have been for the young Saroo, with dire conditions and kidnappings at every turn. To some, this may feel very slow but it is important to showcasing just how this event managed to happen.  It's not all doom and gloom as we are introduced to Nicole Kidman and David Wenham's characters who adopt young Saroo, practically saving the child. A great side of humanity is shown within the first encounters between Saroo and his new parents, as instant love is showcased very well. Kidman shows her quality as an actress, showing great compassion and care for her adopted children.

The second half of the film jumps 25 years ahead to when we see Dev Patel take over as Saroo, preparing to go to university. Patel is fantastic in his role but the second half's story doesn't match the performances or emotional pull. Saroo starts off his semester and meets his classmates including Rooney Mara's Lucy who becomes a love interest. Everything seems to be going great until Saroo notices a food from his past that completely kicks his mind into gear, sending him into a frenzy where all he can think about is that short period of time as a kid. This is the weakest part of the film as the reason doesn't seem to justify the reaction. Saroo now becomes rather self-centred, blocking any form of help from loved ones when it is needed. This most definitely seems to be for added drama but it was fairly far fetched within this true story. It made it clear that you were watching a film rather than natural actions. 

As Saroo starts to distance himself from his family, he then starts to calculate the distance he travelled that day, using old train records and Google Earth. The search, in fact, is shown to be fairly short but the emotion is kept within. This is where Patel shines as his drive and determination are clearly visible up until he finds out where his family may be. Patel then goes from strength to strength, showing great emotional acting whilst trying to repair relationships with those he has recently distanced himself away from. This creates a fantastic, emotional ending, bringing heart to this humane story. Again, Davis and screenwriter Luke Davis deserve credit for handling this true story very well, getting the most emotion out of it as possible.

'Lion' has ended up with an impressive 6 nominations for the 2017 Oscars. Within those is Greig Fraser for Best Cinematography which is fully deserved. Due to the film being set in India and within Australia, Fraser is able to work with beautiful locations and gets the best out of his shots. Early on, we are treated to glorious images such as a young Saroo looking into a field of Moths, that is one of the best shots of the year. The rest of nominations include a Best Picture nod, as well as nominations for Adapted Screenplay, Original Score and for Best Supporting Actress (Nicole Kidman). However, the most likely winner is indeed Dev Patel for Best Supporting Actor. If Patel fell into the Best Actor he may have had a tougher time but with a weaker category, we may well see the English-born actor win the prize. The nominations show that 'Lion' is a well-made film. Whether it takes home most of these awards is probably unlikely but that is no harsh criticism on this film.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'Lion'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing the film. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor

'Sing' Review

Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) runs a theatre that is haemorrhaging money. In order to pay his debts, Moon sets up a singing competition. After a misprint about the prize money, Moon sees animals of all kinds come forward to showcase their singing talents.

The animated film industry seems to be going mad right now for worlds inhabited by animals. Last year saw 'Zootopia/Zootropolis' and 'The Secret Life of Pets' take their shot at building a film starring animals, not humans. The latter saw Illumination Studios make a lofty $875 million worldwide, proving to be a huge success at the box office. It is to no surprise then that the company have returned to an animal story, this time where no humans exist, much like 'Zootropolis'. This effort also sees Illumination using bigger talents in an effort to outdo previous efforts.

In doing so, though, 'Sing' does look to fall back on cliches within the animation and musical genres. Whether that be from its characters - the likes of there being a German pig and Russian bears - or using pop songs instead of making genuine jokes. The latter will indeed please its target audience as the songs are well known with the characters performing them, are charming enough for it to be enjoyable. Like most films, if the cliche is done well, then it can work. And for 'Sing', it does, for the most part. Illumination are known for their films to be mainly child orientated - see 'Minions' as a clear example - and that is the case yet again. This transcends to the rest of the film, being apparent in the humour as it features childish slapstick comedy and jokes about the different animals. If you're looking for this to be similar to a Disney or Pixar film that delivers both to adults and kids, then you will be disappointed when you do not get that complete experience.

The main story features a music talent show being introduced to make a lot of money, which very much reflects today's television. The aspect of a musical talent show ala 'The X Factor' or 'American Idol' is handled well, as it creates a replica of what these shows are like. You have your dreamers, the ones with a backstory, the arrogant ones, the trainwrecks and of course, the diamonds in the rough which leads into the main storyline. Here we get to see the lucky contenders look to wow the audience but also balance their day to day life whilst doing so. This provides interesting looks at different families, one where Johnny (Taron Egerton) is thought less of due to his choice to sing and  Rosita (Reese Witherspoon), having to divide her time up between her responsibilities as a mother and also for chasing her dream to name a few. These storylines bring a sort of realism to the story as there is probably something relatable within one of the characters stories, even if it's simply not being confident enough. 'Sing's message from here is then very clear, that you should do what you like and not let anything stand in your way. It's not going to be easy but if you at least try and are driven and passionate enough about it, then you should have no regrets.

Of course the music is a main part of the film but early on it is mainly dominated by pop tracks playing constantly after one another. The muic of Nicki Minaj, Taylor Swift and others may put many off but as it is aimed at kids, its clear to see why they done so. Thankfully, as this movie moves on, we see some more of the cast members start to stand out. Fans of Seth McFarlane will already know about his singing chops, showcasing them very well in 'Family Guy' and 'Ted'. McFarlane excels with his Sinatra-esque vocals which can be appreciated all across the board. Former American Idol contestant and Grammy Award nominee Tori Kelly also shines bringing beautiful vocals to great songs like 'Hallelujah' and 'Don't You Worry 'bout a Thing'. Scarlett Johansson, Taron Egerton and the other cast members bring their own renditions to other well known songs, showcasing more of their talents than we were aware of. Matthew McConaughey shines as Buster Moon, the Koala mastermind behind the theatres talent show. McConaughey isn't recognisable in his voice unlike some of the other cast members and does a great job holding this film up.

'Sing' is a perfectly harmless family movie that does bring some good moments through its musical numbers. The humour is targeted towards a younger demographic but the message within the story is clear and understandable for all. A step back in the right direction of quality for Illumination after 'Minions' and 'The Secret Life of Pets' for sure.

Final Verdict = 

So have you seen 'Sing'? If so, what did you think of the film? I hope that this review was useful for if you were planning on seeing this film. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my review, it is much appreciated!

By Angus McGregor