The animated anthropomorphic shoe movie “Sneaks” reminds me a lot of Werner Herzog, and not just because one time he ate a freakin’ shoe.
The director of “Fitzcarraldo” and “Aguirre, the Wrath of God” also claimed that humanity was “starving for new images,” a challenge many filmmakers have taken to heart. I cannot say with absolute certainty that Herzog will think highly of a film in which a phalanx of living footwear marches through Central Park in the middle of the night as giant murder rats dart at them from the shadows, slaughtering each shoe one by one. But I’m pretty sure he’d have to concede that yes, this really is a new image. Well played, “Sneaks.”
“Sneaks” is the latest in a long line of films that wonder whether the little things we take for granted in life have feelings. “The Brave Little Toaster” argued that we should feel bad for every outdated piece of technology we left behind or threw away when we moved. The “Toy Story” movies said the same thing about toys. “Food Fight!” tried, unconvincingly, to convince us that every food mascot is living out the plot of “Casablanca” in our grocery stores every night. So heck, why not shoes?
Anthony Mackie and Chloe Bailey star as Ty and Maxine, a pair of extremely fancy sneakers called “Alchemy 24s.” Maxine dreams of being a shoe, by which I mean to say she wants to be worn by a human being who actually needs shoes. Ty dreams of being placed on a literal pedestal by a shoe collector. A metaphor for the inner conflict within us all, I suppose. Who doesn’t wonder if their purpose in life is to be worshipped or to smell like feet?
These expensive Alchemy 24s get raffled off at a shoe convention, and although the mysterious Collector (Laurence Fishburne) bought so many tickets the game was practically rigged, a teenager named Edson (Swae Lee) wins them anyway. The Collector attempts to buy them off of Edson, and offers preposterous recompense like the naming rights to a major stadium of Edson’s choice, but Edson only wants the shoes. So The Collector steals them. Maxine tries to jump off The Collector’s speeding motorcycle but Ty gets thrown away instead.
While Maxine tries to escape The Collector’s impenetrable shoe fortress, Ty embarks on an epic quest throughout New York City. His guide is an Artful Dodger-type shoe named J.B. (Martin Lawrence), who says he’ll help Ty find Maxine but really just wants the gems encrusted in Ty’s shoe … stuff. It’s hard to figure out exactly how to describe anthropomorphic shoes sometimes. Even the obvious visual metaphors get muddled in “Sneaks,” since these shoes have tongues that stick out of the front toe, and we all know that’s not where the tongue actually is on a shoe.
As a concept, “Sneaks” sounds like a fake trailer for a Pixar knockoff. The premise is so thin it’s practically invisible, the rules of this universe are impenetrable, and the underlying allegory is confusing at best. If our shoes are also people, what does that mean? No seriously, what does that mean? “Sneaks” has some thoughts about collector’s culture, and comes down firmly on the side of actually opening all the products you own and using them, instead of letting them stagnate untouched on a shelf for all eternity. Kudos for that, I suppose. Unless you own the original “Rocket Firing Boba Fett” action figure, in which case maybe leave it in the package and get thee to a Sotheby’s.
“Sneaks” also opens a big ol’ can of worms in the pun department. I’m particularly fond of the Greek chorus of shoes hanging from a power line, who can no longer offer arch support, and instead provide much-needed “narrative support.” Wokka-wokka. “Sneaks don’t talk around here, we converse” deserves a small round of applause. At some point the writers just give up and start listing shoe-centric William Shakespeare parodies like “The Taming of the Shoe,” “The Twelfth Nike” and “Much Adidas About Nothing,” and honestly, who can blame them?
It would be easy to write off “Sneaks” as a hack job, a sole-less riff on a tired premise, but there’s more afoot here. The script may be odd and confusing — and the existence and true identity of the unnecessarily intimidating Doctor Octopus-like supervillain The Forger (Roddy Ricch) is a total mystery — but screenplays aren’t everything. Motion pictures are a living medium, swirling images on a giant silver screen, or at least on an adequate digital one.
“Sneaks” isn’t a great story but it’s visually alive. Directors Rob Edwards and Christopher Jenkins imagine a New York City with all the odd angles and exaggerated caricatures of an PlayStation 2 video game, and that’s a good thing. There are fluid and thrilling motions and dynamic character designs. You didn’t have to go this hard, makers of “Sneaks,” but in so doing you effectively saved your film.
I suspect that “Sneaks” is in no real danger of becoming a classic. I also suspect that there will be those who watch this inscrutable kids flick and appreciate the unexpected amount of effort that went into telling a story this unconvincing. You can pick up on the film’s unlikely energy right off the bat, and that energy never fades for long before it gets pumped back up again. It’s surprising that a film with such a half-hearted premise would turn out mostly OK. And yes, “mostly OK” isn’t a gigantic compliment, but if the shoe fits … wear it.
