Hoppers (2026) Review

I went into the theater with high expectations for Daniel Chong’s latest film. It follows Mabel, a young activist who inherited a love of nature from her grandma, one day using body-swapping technology to (accidentally) start an anti-human revolution among woodland creatures. Such a rich premise was ultimately watered down by studio pressure, and instead of posing important questions for a younger target audience, Hoppers offers solutions so easy they verge on naive.

You really can’t talk about the end result of this film without first talking about the role Disney/Pixar played in shaping its political commentary. In December of 2024, The Hollywood Reporter stated that the filmmakers were told to “downplay” their “planned message of environmentalism” after Disney had just cut a settlement deal with Trump. This places Hoppers in the same realm as other films from the studio like Elio, which had an entire LGBTQ+ storyline erased before hitting theaters. This is necessary context because it locates this movie within a broader milieu where studios now have a monetary and legal incentive to pressure filmmakers to water down the message behind their art. The issue with playing it safe is that it degrades the entire project, including the visuals.

         This doesn’t mean the film is badly animated. There are several moments where viewers, like Mabel, can luxuriate in the gorgeous scenery nature has to offer: leaves in the breeze, fishes swimming. These moments help us feel grounded and also give emotional weight to Mabel’s fight against land developers trying to destroy a local glade. That being said, there’s no real sense of risk in the illustration style. Everything looks exactly as one would expect it to in a modern children’s movie, and I can’t help but think this, too, is Chong trying to play it safe. This is particularly disheartening at a time when animation as a medium is showing so much innovation, and it makes the film feel blander than it is. But the forgettable visuals are far less harmful than the message Hoppers delivers in its final act.

It’s only after the animals come together and save human homes from a wildfire that the Mayor, who was previously in league with the land developers, decides to save the glade and work with Mabel on a more sustainable option. Rather than posit the problem being that the environmental health of both humans and animals relies on the generosity of a small elite, viewers are instead told that they just need to find common ground with their representatives. In 2026, this feels like a bad faith argument to put forward. We know our elected officials are in the pockets of the few, not the many, proven by the fact that our politicians are currently carrying out the most unpopular war in US history. I’m not asking for a children’s film to demand the guillotine, but in a movie that explicitly, repeatedly, states that community is important if we are to survive, I find it interesting that the answer was ‘work with the corrupt politician’ instead of ‘ban together and save each other.’ Chong swears that Disney did not officially censor his work, but the story feels so shoehorned into a specific direction that goes against its entire messaging, one wonders if the implied threat is all that was needed to completely change the ending of this movie.

         What’s saddest to me about this film isn’t that it could have looked better, or that much of it felt uninspired despite such a fun premise. Instead, I can’t help but think of all the children who will, over the course of their childhoods, receive art that takes less and less risks amidst a new McCarthyism. Culture shapes values, morals and imaginations. If our films can’t show that it’s possible to stand up to those in power, to build a better world together outside the system, what chance do we have?