Hoppers

• Also known as Jumpers in some countries
• Directed by Daniel Chong
• February 23, 2026 (El Capitan Theatre) / March 6, 2026 (US)

Voice Cast

• Mabel Tanaka-Piper Curda
• 6-year-old Mabel-Lila Liu
• King George (Mammal King)-Bobby Moynihan
• Mayor Jerry Generazzo-Jon Hamm
• Dr. Samantha “Sam”-Kathy Najimy
• Titus (Insect King)-Dave Franco
• Young Titus (Insect Prince)-Eman Abdul-Razzak
• Loaf-Eduardo Franco
• Nisha-Aparna Nancherla
• Tom Lizard-Tom Law
• Conner-Sam Richardson
• Ellen-Melissa Villaseñor
• Bird King-Isiah Whitlock Jr.
• Amphibian King-Steve Purcell
• Fish Queen-Ego Nwodim
• Reptile Queens-Nichole Sakura
• Insect Queen-Meryl Streep
• Grandma Tanaka-Karen Huie
• Diane-Vanessa Bayer
• Elderly Beavertonian-Joe Spano
• Mrs. Tanaka-Lori Alan

An animal-loving college student transfers her mind into a robotic beaver to save a local glade from destruction only to begin an animal uprising. Is this a Nature’s Revenge movie?

I went into Hoppers with my doubts. Considering how much they pointed out this is like Avatar I thought this would crush my soul by being purposely derivative. It was derivative but largely of the Nature’s Revenge genre. Perhaps even an affectionate nod to it.

The story focuses on Mabel who’s an animal lover. I consider myself one, but what the hero Mabel does is free animals in the opening with no thought about how the animals will survive in the local environment. That turtle or hamster or whatever may not be well equipped to survive locally. What if they start breeding and turn out to be an aggressive species? In a movie with an animal welfare/environmental message that is shortsighted and nobody really calls her on it.

After trying to liberate some animals while in elementary school, young Mabel is left by her mother with her grandmother in a story that never gets into maternal abandonment. Between the opener and the bulk of the story her mother has moved across the country. It sounds like it happened early, but they never make when clear. Mabel and grannie bond over a small glade that Mabel wants to preserve not only for environmental reasons but in memory of the woman that raised her.

Jerry, mayor of Beaverton, is pushing a beltway that will destroy the glade in his effort to get reelected. To their credit Jerry is not portrayed as evil with the sole goal of destroying the environment. He comes off more as wrong with Mabel’s efforts pushing him more into his corner rather than inspiring him to change. She has been harassing him for years. The completion of this of the beltway is key to his reelection campaign. How and why? I don’t know but it does create a situation he cannot easily give up on.

Maybe it was missed on those involved but Mabel as a human being has totally neglected her life in favor of activism. She is away from her family and failing her classes and has nothing beyond her cause. I don’t think this was intended as a sad thing but where are her friends that she could count on? She has nobody to help her other than a college professor that mostly likely has no personal relationship with the girl.

In movies like this (nature) they often avoid mentioning or engaging in the predatory inclinations of predators. Even though every creature thinks and talks with Hoppers a bird eating a worm is treated dispassionately. It is just a part of life getting consumed with no anger or fear. I think I preferred ignoring predation because this new way gets into very unsettling areas.

That aside they did have fun with the concept. Especially when it devolved into chaos when the animals decided to take up arms against humanity. The use of a shark was quite inspired and one of the funniest bits of the whole film. From there it became like a silly version of any number of Nature’s Revenge movies that have come down the pike over the decades of film. Then it gets comedically disturbing and absurd with a maniacal butterfly using the technology to engage in a bit of local genocide. Trust me. It is funny and some great black comedy. Mature yet for children.

There’s a line in the beginning where Dr. Sam who created the Hopper technology and is Mabel’s college professor mentions that Mabel is failing her class. Towards the end, the scientist has lost her job and funding because the technology is too dangerous. That danger is because Mabel recklessly used it but we won’t talk about that. I’m getting a little off track here.

Anyway, Mabel was failing a class and Sam decided to do a solid and let her graduate anyway? How did Mabel grow? Jerry experienced a change. He was no longer willing to blindly develop. He learns to balance growth with the needs of nature. Mabel? She failed upwards. And she got a job with Sam whose life she ruined!  I don’t think she even really learned how to deal with the pain of the death of her grandmother that she was clearly carrying around.

Even mammal king George experiences some growth. He doesn’t necessarily become a better king. He was already good king. He just gains experience that he lacked. Mabel? No consequences and not much learned.

This may sound like I am calling Hoppers a lost cause. It is funny and witty with a mix of slapstick and emotional scenes that do connect. Insect king Titus is a great true villain. The characters, even the minor ones, never blur together in a script lacking contrivance. As much as it ignored or missed, it got so much more right. Plus it never forgets to entertain.

I had my doubts about Hoppers. I can’t say they were all allayed, but it is one of the better Pixar offerings of recent years. It can get genuinely funny and has moments of real emotion in an interesting if a touch derivative story which it gets past by admitting it is a bit derivative. Great for kids and adults and maybe even worth a rewatch.