Hoppers

One of the universal truths we seem to have gotten out of this decade so far is that the American animation industry is in a very strange place, especially when it comes to original stories. On one hand, we had two animated sequels become some of the highest grossing films ever and being really well received, and on the other, most original animated films have underperformed both critically and especially commercially. The most successful original animated film since “Encanto” wasn't even a theatrical release at first, and yet “KPop Demon Hunters” will likely be the best remembered original animated film of the decade, a title that has previously universally gone to Disney/Pixar films. 

All of this is why a lot was resting on the back of “Hoppers,” the 30th film released by Pixar Animation Studios, directed by Daniel Chong (“We Bear Bears”) and written by Jesse Andrews (“Luca,” “Lars & the Dying Girl”). I’d been a very avid “We Bear Bears” viewer back in the day, and with a premise that seemingly spoke to me specifically, this was one of my most anticipated projects rolling into 2026. I’m very happy to say that my excitement was well-founded. 

“Hoppers” revolves around environmentally-minded college student Mabel Tanaka (Piper Curda), who after failing to protect a personally-beloved wilderness in her hometown from development, transfers her mind by “hopping” into a robotic beaver body in order to communicate with the animals of that habitat and save it from destruction. Along the way, she teams up with both the optimistic beaver leader of the mammals, King George (Bobby Moynihan), and, more reluctantly, the seemingly beloved Mayor Jerry (Jon Hamm) as the unintended chaos of Mabel’s actions begins to unfold out of control.

While not too complicated of a premise, “Hoppers” still manages to keep a critical viewer’s attention with a simple-to-understand but still fun to learn approach to worldbuilding. Listening to King George explain the “Pond Rules” of the local ecosystem feels more grounded than typical exposition and presents a fun moment to introduce Mabel to viewpoints that directly oppose her own (namely, a fellow beaver who is completely fine with being eaten by a bear).

Continuing the expansion of the setting is the introduction of the Animal Council, a bureaucratic group of classifications, who once again are a plot beat defined best by their opposition to Mabel’s intentions (this time they want to crush all of the humans). Even in smaller moments like those, the inherent absurdity of having an Animal Council in the first place is enough to keep you hooked and interested on what the film decides to do next. And there are a few sequences in this film in which the absurdity increases beyond what I previously thought was possible for a Pixar film, which won’t be spoiled here. You’ll know them when you see them.

An especially essential part of building up the world of “Hoppers” happens through its excellent group of characters, each who I found added to the film in great ways. Much of the first act’s focus on Mabel coming to terms with the culture surrounding the pond is genuinely fun, and she's such an easy character to root for. You want to see her win back the area for the animals because the film allows you to care about her motivations, whether that be ecological or personal. She ends up being a really strong example of the “transformed main character comes to terms with their new body / situation and blends in really well” trope, something that I can imagine myself and many other people wish we were examples of.

King George is a great confidant for Mabel, serving as the one sane voice in the chaos of the environment, which is also why Moynihan feels like perfect casting from someone you end up really caring for by the end of the film. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t do a quick dive into Mayor Jerry, who's the best example of how hysterical the character writing in this film can get. His entire morning routine sequence is nonstop gags, and he has some amazing one-liners as you go through the film. Plus, the film has a fairly deep roster of side and supporting characters, each of whom add to the humor of this film in some way.

This leads me into what’s likely going to be the main takeaway for a lot of people, being that this movie is really, really, really funny. As I said earlier, the crazy thing about this film is that when you expect it to have hit its peak, it just continues to build and expand until it's almost unbelievable how high-scale the chaos becomes. There’s a scene in which hundreds of birds pick up a shark out of the sea and prepare to drop it on Jerry, and it's only the third or fourth craziest sequence in the film. It’s also clear from the final project that Daniel Chong’s past experience helped a lot in developing the visuals for this film, as every character design and element of each scene down to the branches of trees and the shapes of specific houses is oozing with character, giving everything in the film a certain charm that goes a long way. 

Now, I would be wrong to say every element for the film clicked with me. In fact, I have one major qualm with it, that being the ending of the film. After a truly excellent sequence in which a robot version of Jerry, having been hopped into by one of the Animal Council members, seeks to commit mass murder at a campaign rally, and is seemingly talked out of it by Mabel (which features my favorite gag in the whole film), an accidental flame sparks a wildfire that ravages the forest. The end result being that the dam all of our animal companions have been living at needs to be dismantled in order to extinguish the flames. 

While it isn't a derailing ending, it feels almost anticlimactic in a way. The choice to go 100% back into an emotional conclusion instead of tapping into the absurdity that makes the film work so well means you miss out on something that could've been an even stronger conclusion. Jerry was going to realize that the right decision was to reroute the beltway whether the forest fire existed or not, so why not go all the way with the chaos? Why not have something like Titus’s audio actually turn most humans into bug-zombies, and have Mabel and Jerry defeat him by hopping through multiple animal bodies and using their unique features to their advantage? I’m also not that much of a fan of the hopping technology being flatly removed at the ending, as it feels like the film forced an inorganic explanation as to why Mabel wouldn't just be able to hop anymore.

Still, though, “Hoppers” is enough of a step in the right direction evolution wise for Pixar in an era of mixed messages between the leadership and creative heads of the studio. In a time when audiences are rethinking how they interact with animation entirely, it’s great that a film like this was able to find its audience. This creative team clearly has the ability to develop and execute an amazing original story, and I personally can't wait to see what happens next in both this world and in the ones still to come. Although it may not be an absolute home run, I’m sure Pixar will take an industry-tying two RBI double that proves why they are still the animation studio to beat, and possibly always will be.

8.5/10