What’s It About

When a designer sneaker unwittingly finds himself lost in New York City, he must dig deep into his sole to rescue his sister and return to his rightful owner.

MOVIESinMO REVIEW

I was intrigued when I first learned of “Sneaks.” An animated film about sneaker culture with anthropomorphic footwear as leads? That’s untapped territory. But what starts out as a promising concept soon derails into a cliched disaster that never gets off the ground. So, the writer of “The Princess and the Frog,” Rob Edwards, makes his directorial debut with co-director Chris Jenkins’ assistance in this film titled “Sneaks.” It’s about these two sneaker siblings, Ty (Anthony Mackie) and Maxine (Chloe Bailey), who couldn’t be more opposite. Ty’s concerned with being kept pristine in a showcase case, whereas Maxine’s looking to get into some action and needs to leave a mark on the world. So the film begins at this Sneakerhead Gala in Manhattan, right? Edson (Swae Lee), this basketball-obsessed teenager from a not-so-glamorous background, completely wins a raffle for these amazing Alchemy 24s – you know, the white sneakers with the gold trim that NBA player Chris Paul (appearing as himself) created. These shoes are like the dream shoes, and Edson seriously needs them since his present pair is literally disintegrating. So, things get complicated when The Collector (Laurence Fishburne), this notorious sneaker guy who works for the enigmatic Forager (Roddy Ricch), steals the coveted kicks from Edson’s pad. As he’s committing the robbery, Ty and Maxine – who completely come alive when humans are not present – find themselves getting separated. What we have here is a romp around New York City as Ty tries to locate his sister and make it back to Edson in time for the big basketball game. Let me get real with you – this movie has more problems than dirty toes. The most noticeable is its utter lack of originality. “Sneaks” completely copies “Toy Story 2” here, scene for scene: you have these living objects attempting to return to their owner and avoiding this collector who wishes to preserve them in mint condition. Seriously, even the entire concept of objects concealing their thoughts from humans is directly from Pixar’s playbook. But seriously, the animation is where “Sneaks” simply doesn’t measure up. It tries unsuccessfully to follow the groundbreaking look of “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” with its drop-frame animation but lacks the technical skill and artistic imagination to make it work. What it achieves is stiff, rough-around-the-edges motion that, at times, looks like incomplete pre-visualization. The visual blandness is unforgivable for a film that celebrates sneaker culture – known for bold designs and innovation. The shoes are just so generic and boring, they come across as expensive knockoffs rather than the cool status symbol they’re supposed to be. Really, only the Forager character stands out, with this strange, detailed look that completely clashes with the rest of the movie’s minimalist aesthetic. Add in Terrence Martin’s techno music (which vaguely recalls “Spider-Verse”), and those brief moments almost taunt you with what might have been if only the makers had gotten weirder just a little bit more. Along the way, Ty meets JB (Martin Lawrence), an older Air Jordan-like shoe who has lost his mate. JB initially sees Ty as a mark to be scammed but then warms up to act as a guide. Their adventures throughout New York – catching rides on skateboards and playing pickup basketball for tips – provide some sporadic entertainment but not nearly enough to engage one. So the movie kinda tries to make up for its subpar visuals with a Mustard soundtrack (Grammy winner, btw), but tbh, the songs are super forgettable, and the lyrics are hella superficial. There’s this one song that literally repeats “A24s” like, 50 times, and you can’t help but think that the filmmakers were crossing their fingers that indie giant A24 would distribute their movie (spoiler alert: they didn’t). For a film about sneaker culture, “Sneaks” completely misses a whole lot of opportunities to actually showcase what’s unique about this world. It could’ve explored the art, history, and individual swagger that sneakers have to offer. But nope, it instead hits us with some generic puns (“sneaks don’t talk – we converse” and “your mama was from Payless”) and the same tired message about remaining faithful to your kicks. There are a couple of moments that do work, however. JB has some truly sincere messages on getting older and worn out: “At first, we all crispy and new. But then life happens, and you get broken in. Before you know it, you’re just broke.” That’s a line that strongly resonates as both sneaker insight and some life advice, but truthfully, moments like that don’t come along often in this 80-minute ride that somehow still manages to feel stretched out. The voice cast, despite talents like Mackie, Bailey, Lawrence, and Fishburne, as well as musicians Quavo and Roddy Ricch, do their best with the script but are given some rather dull characters and weak dialogue to contend with. Culturally, “Sneaks” gets a thumbs up for featuring Black characters and urban landscapes as its center, recognizing how Black culture rules sneaker culture. The film portrays New York City as this hip melting pot with all these various characters, which is pleasant to witness. However, good vibes cannot salvage a movie that severely falls short on creativity and rings hollow. For young children who are simply seeking colorful animations and goofy jokes, “Sneaks” may hold their attention for a while. But parents and any sneakerheads seeking a good take on their hobby are gonna find this movie as comfortable as a pair of kicks that don’t fit quite right. “Sneaks” truly had the potential to be something great – to portray sneaker culture like “Ratatouille” did for cuisine or “Cars” did for automobiles. Instead, it just turns out to be a bargain-bin imitation of better movies when it could’ve been a one-of-a-kind masterpiece. “Sneaks” is akin to those bootleg Jordans you’d buy at a sketchy flea market–it looks okay from afar, but when you look at it closely, it falls apart. Like Edson’s busted boots at the start of the film, this film just doesn’t hold up.

OUR RATING – A MIS-STEPPED 5