Directed by Mark Dindal

Buena Vista Pictures

2 1/2 STARS



After children are exposed to Disney’s “Chicken Little” this weekend, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were sudden requests for fowl to replace Fido as holiday pet gift of choice—or at least shrieks against drum legs at family dinner.

Part incredible animation, part Zach Braff’s success at channeling lovable neuroticism, the title star of the production is the cutest animated animal ever—besting out the numerous big-eyed elephants, dogs, and bunnies in the Disney repertoire. Those giant glasses, that tiny green shirt, and the best lines in the movie instantly win you over. Sadly, Disney’s newest attempt to overcome the loss of Pixar is not nearly as charming as my new little love.

Disney proves with “Chicken Little” that they can pull off a visually compelling computer-animated feature sans Pixar. The animation in the film isn’t simply Pixar-lite—part of the joy of viewing comes from seeing a computer-animated style that doe not look like Pixar or DreamWorks. Despite revamping towards computer animation, there is an undertone of the traditional style of which Walt would have approved. The setting of Oakey Oaks is particularly captivating in a Toontown-esque style—or maybe an homage, as producer Randy Fullmer also worked on “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”

Where Disney fails in “Little” seems to be where Disney always fails in recent years—the story and the script. It was not too long ago that a Disney movie was fast-paced and witty, even if the memory is starting to fade with more recent Disney catastrophes like “Brother Bear.” The tale—of a young chicken determined to save the world despite a tarnished reputation for over-exaggeration—is fine and even kind of sweet at times, but it creates pure apathy. You may not be bored, but if the movie were to suddenly stop, you probably wouldn’t notice.

“Little” tries way too hard to espouse the “Shrek” mode of contemporary ironic detachment from traditional cartoons. We begin with a riff on how to start a fairy tale, including a faux “Lion King” opening, as if Disney felt like taking self-effacing shots at the Mouse, ala the Dream Works monopoly.

The tragedy of “Little” is that Disney was so close. The amazing cast, including Joan Cusack and Steve Zahn, is actually qualified to do solid vocal work, not just be a cool celebrity cameo (I’m looking at you, Katie Couric in “Shark Tale”). But they can’t turn bad lines into good ones. Braff conquers with his delivery and lucks out on having some choice lines with which to work— “Prepare to hurt, and I don’t mean emotionally, like I do.”

The soundtrack for the film mirrors exactly what is wrong with it. The “cool” ’90s songs that the characters sing (“Wannabe” by the Spice Girls) and the not-too-hip band contributing cover songs (the Barenaked Ladies) blatantly expose Disney’s misinterpretation of “Shrek 2”s soundtrack’s success.

Young children will probably enjoy this film, the very long riff on different terms for pee (such as “tinkle” and “piddle”) probably are feats of comic genius to them. But as a movie that us Peter Pan complexers can relate to? Eh, not so much.

Luckily, for those of us who really enjoy cute little things, “Little,” along with the two other characters competing for the uber-adorable prize—a fish with a bowl on his head and a furry orange alien—there’s some nice stuff to look at. But looking seems to be all that Disney wants us to do in this film. Disney may have conquered its animation problems, but until it gets to the root of why its storytelling skills have all but disappeared, you’ll just have to stick to the Disney Classic movie collection.

—Staff writer Margaret M. Rossman can be reached at rossman@fas.harvard.edu.