It’s hard to be down on a feel-good holiday movie. There were few titles over the holiday season that were marketed more wholesomely than "We Bought a Zoo." And yet of all the movies I saw during the tail end of 2011, this was the one that left me least satisfied.

It’s something of an odd creation - a heartfelt, warm-blooded story that remains largely lifeless. Adapted from the Benjamin Mee autobiography about his experiences as the new owner of a run-down zoo, Cameron Crowe’s sluggish and long-winded project works hard to make you smile. More often than not, that comes about through Matt Damon’s breezy and affable portrayal of Benjamin.

Oddly, there is very little animal action here for a movie about a zoo - and come to think of it, there’s not much comedy at play here at all. Cameron’s goal seems to be to create a likable ensemble - much like his triumphant 2000 film "Almost Famous." There’s Benjamin, who has lost his spouse, and like the soul-searching heroes of so many Crowe projects, he opts to turn his life upside down, abruptly quitting his job as an journalist. He moves his kids - teenager Dylan (Colin Ford) and adolescent Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) - to a rural plot of land that includes the Rosemoor Animal Park.

The park is run by young animal lover Kelly (Scarlett Johansson), who is initially wary of Benjamin’s arrival until he puts up the cash to aid a grizzly bear and a tiger. As the park operator comes to trust Benjamin more and more, the action intensifies around reopening this park - creating something new out of the ashes of this family’s mourning.

And yet for all its earnest characters and good intentions, something about "We Bought a Zoo" just never clicks. In all of Crowe’s best films - think "Jerry Maguire," "Say Anything," "Almost Famous" - his characters have revealed themselves through an array of quirks and eccentricities. His heroes are fully formed, often surprising and unexpected. And yet apart from Benjamin, none of the characters in "Zoo" are given the chance to break out of their one-dimensional functions.

The group scenes work well, but we never push beyond the surface chemistry to learn about the motivations, desires, dreams. They are likable, this whole film is likable and then it comes to an end. There’s nothing urgent, unique or captivating; they all mean well, and then fizzle from memory. It’s a big, bland smile of a thing.

Email: snyderreviews@hotmail.com