Hoppers

Hoppers is Pixar at its best, a story with warmth, humor, exciting action, endearing characters, and a reassuringly expansive notion of community.

Hoppers' isn’t just James Cameron’s Avatar if it had feelings, it’s also James Cameron’s Avatar if it was good.

If Pixar is now just as formulaic as its Hollywood animation peers, then director Daniel Chong's film is a reminder that a stereotypical crowd-pleaser from this studio is made with enough emotional sincerity and visual inspiration to never feel like cheap product fallen off the factory line.

Even when it hops off course, this animated gem is funny and fierce in all the right places. Pixar is back, baby. Haters deserve a good squishing.

Hoppers feels a little less sanded-down than most of the studio’s recent movies, less content to coast on formula and hew to expectations about what Pixar movies do and don’t do.

One can’t help but long for something a little more exciting than ​“pleasant” – Pixar used to lead the animation industry, and they’ve been treading water for far too long.

Pixar has been alternating between playing things safe with sequels to its hits and taking bigger swings with emotional human stories. Hoppers sits awkwardly between these impulses, recycling emotional moments and plots from other films while eschewing any clear moral or big moments of character growth.

Very well made Pixar movie. Every single unique element worked well. The concept are well presented and the show some solid laughs and coming of age drama.

To what extent should humans be allowed to interfere with nature, and in particular with the animal kingdom? This is the question explored in the new Pixar Animation film *Hoppers*. Mabel, raised by her grandmother to be someone who loves nature, has found her sanctuary in the countryside by a lake right next to her grandmother’s house. Nature, with its calming effect and soul, has always been a special place for sensitive people. Mabel finds herself and her balance there after a difficult childhood. She has always wanted to rescue animals from humans and set them **** that we’ve arrived in the present day, nothing has changed. Quite the opposite, in fact: Mabel is politically active in the cause of animal welfare and nature conservation. Meanwhile, she is opposed by the mayor, who represents capitalism—a system that disregards flora and fauna, pushes through its plans regardless, and is driven solely by profit. But it is not only the capitalists who take centre stage in Daniel Chong’s animated film; scientists do too. The scientists, the observers, know full well that one must interfere neither with the plans of the profit-hungry nor with the animal kingdom; instead, they simply want to use Hopper’s new technology to find out more about animals. Mabel, in her impulsive way, sees things differently and recognises this as an opportunity to preserve her ****, exactly what the scientist warned about is happening: she gets too close to the animals and disaster looms. Nevertheless, *The Hoppers* finds a conciliatory conclusion, as befits a Pixar animated film, with Mabel, the scientists and the mayor reaching an agreement. At first glance, it seems idealistic, but that is precisely what matters here, because the ending gives children the sense that a compromise can always be reached. To return to the question posed at the start, the film illustrates how both worlds can coexist but cannot merge, even though they should look out for one **** animation style, which has almost become standard for Pixar films, strikes me as too polished in this case, just as it did with Elio last time. Furthermore, the film’s message often feels vague, although the humour in the script is well executed, with many memorable characters such as George the beaver, the lizard and Titus the butterfly. Nevertheless, it feels more like the standard Pixar has set for itself, and overall the plot always follows the same pattern.

Hoppers is a pleasant Pixar movie, but for me it lands more in the "nice enough, but probably forgettable" category. It has a good heart, a few solid gags, and a fairly clear environmental message built around protecting one specific place, which helps the story feel at least thematically focused. One thing I really liked was the way the movie presents the animals' perspective. When we see the world through them, their eyes have whites, they become expressive, readable, and easier to emotionally connect with. But from the human point of view, they go back to looking like black-eyed, misunderstood creatures. It is a simple visual idea, but it works very well and might be the most memorable creative choice in the film. The problem is that the movie tries to carry a bit too much at once. We have Mabel's grief after losing her grandmother, her anger issues, her love for animals, the threat of a bypass being built over the lake, the idea of cooperation between species, and then eventually a second antagonist. None of these ideas are terrible on their own, but together they make the story feel less clean than it should be. Mabel herself is also a mixed character for me. She is supposed to be 19, but very often she behaves much younger, sometimes almost like a child. That can make her frustrating, especially when the film wants her emotional arc to feel mature. Her relationship with her grandmother is clearly important, and the movie keeps returning to it, but that is also part of the issue - it sometimes feels like the film has to remind us of that emotional weight because it does not always naturally stay in the story. The environmental message is a little exaggerated, but I can accept that because it fits the type of movie this is. The bigger issue is the second antagonist, who weakens both the pacing and the moral idea that everyone has some good in them. The film seems to want a gentle, hopeful message, but then complicates it in a way that does not fully work. Visually, I am also not completely sold. It has that very modern animated look, which is polished, but not really my favorite style. I still prefer the older feel of films like Shrek, Toy Story, Tangled, Cars, or even WALL-E, where the designs felt more memorable and full of character. Here, some of the human designs were a little frustrating to me, especially with Mabel looking much younger than her actual age. Still, I did have a decent time. There are funny moments, the lizard is probably the standout comedy character, and the Polish line "zlo bobrem zwyciezaj" is catchy, even if I doubt it will stay in my head for long. The ending is predictable, but it closes the story in a reasonably satisfying way. So overall: not a bad Pixar movie, just not a great one. It has charm, some clever ideas, and a good heart, but it lacks the deeper emotional spark - that older Pixar soul - that made the studio's best films stay with you long after watching.

A horrible script forces too many inane and preposterous story devices onto the audience to justify sitting through this film. How did they spend so much time and resources on a story so devoid of quality without someone raising a hand during the daily scene review and asking, "Can't we do a little better?"

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]