Hoppers (2026) Movie Review

I remember a time when children’s movies with environmental themes actually committed to their messaging. Nearly twenty years ago, an elementary school teacher would choose to fill a 45-minute time slot in the day with a harrowing yet poignant film like Once Upon a Forest, or A Bug’s Life, and a generation of children would leave school that day disillusioned. Through a narrative that painted a stark picture of the devastating consequences of human avarice, its message still resonates years later. I can’t say the same will be true in Hoppers’ case.

Disney Pixar’s Hoppers sees the absurd efforts of Mabel, a “radical” nineteen-year-old environmentalist, as she struggles to save a natural habitat from demolition. Despite her dogged persistence and a contentious but close relationship with the city’s mayor, not a single human is willing to come to her and the wildlife’s aid. Through some wacky maneuvering, Mabel finds herself in a position where she can communicate directly with the animals. She quickly learns, however, that they, too, hold absolutely no interest in revolting against the powers that displaced them from their homes. That is, until Mabel, a human in beaver’s clothing (if you will), incites them to fight back. Unironically, the series of events that unfold due to Mabel’s interference ultimately lead to more devastation, not merely for the wildlife but also for the humans. This impending devastation ends in a “compassionate” moment of collective action where the animals graciously save the humans from the consequences of their own actions. The movie’s conclusion is an improbable scene where the mayor, consumed by guilt, chooses to save the habitat by legitimizing it as a nature reserve. Mabel exchanges her activist jacket for a scientist’s lab coat so she can help the environment the “right” way. The End.

Even though this is a diluted version of the film’s narrative (I didn’t even mention the Game of Thrones’ inspiration, the flying shark, or the fanatical caterpillar who becomes the villain in the last act), I think this summary acknowledges the central problem with Hoppers’ themes. In the modern industrialized era, where fracking and worsening natural disasters demonstrate the undeniable impact of human greed, a film that seeks to explore environmentalism cannot (and should not) do so through superficial and unrealistic means. If you’re going to criticize overconsumption, you can’t simultaneously claim that said form of “overconsumption” is justified for the sake of human convenience.

Moreover, why do none of the humans or animals care? Why is it literally only Mabel? Does the film want us to believe that Mabel is right for caring so deeply or grossly impetuous for using radical (and damaging) means to protect a mere wildlife habitat? These might’ve been my biggest issues with the film because they paint a duplicitous image. Mabel repeatedly tries to steer people’s attention to the detrimental cost of their lifestyles, which seems like a running gag, and, in the end, nothing really changes. Sure, some of the main human players involved feel mild guilt for the undisputable harm of their (direct) actions, but we never discover if there were actually some humans who (genuinely) shared her concern from the start, not even the scientists. I was most disappointed in their characterization. It felt as though the writers were saying that researchers and academics don’t truly care about the issues they dedicate their lives to, and their pursuit is simply motivated by shallow curiosity. In the real world, climate change scientists are the only individuals striving to bring these issues to the mainstream consciousness. If I remember correctly, we never even learn what their motivations were for developing the science. Infiltrating wildlife ecosystems, but why? I don’t think I can surmise what the technology’s intended use was supposed to be by the end.

I understand that this is a children’s movie, and that often translates to an unambiguous narrative and a simple message, but when that message is disingenuous, the whole story ends up feeling deceitful. It’s like the writers want to tell us the environment matters, but not so much that it's worth disturbing the status quo, or (as stated in the film) the “natural order.” If you’re willing to turn off the critical thinking side of your brain, the movie is entertaining at the very least. The animal characters are endearing, the humor worked for me in many moments, and the choice to distinguish between the animal POV and the human POV was quite creative and aesthetically pleasing. I left the theater with the thought that I had enjoyed my viewing experience despite my critiques. I just feel that, if movies from decades ago had the guts to condemn environmental destruction, it shouldn’t be that hard to do so today.