Lilo & Stitch (2025)

​“Lilo & Stitch” stars Chris Sanders, Maia Kealoha, Sydney Elizabeth Agudong, Zach Galifianakis, Billy Magnussen, Kaipo Dudoit, Tia Carrere, Courtney B. Vance, Hannah Waddingham, and Amy Hill.  Released on May 23, 2025, the film has a young girl befriending a dog-like alien.

The film was directed by Dean Fleischer Camp, known for directing “Fraud” and “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On”.  It is a remake of the 2002 animated film by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois.  They say a pet can turn everyone’s life around for the better, especially those suffering from a tragic loss.  This is the case when referring to dogs, but this particular “canine” changes people’s lives for different reasons.  If you think taking care of a dog is pretty chaotic, try raising a destructive alien posing as one.  “Lilo & Stitch” was one of the few traditional animated films released during the tail end of Disney’s 2D era before resorting to CGI for its future movies.  Praised for its story, characters, and themes involving sisterhood and “Ohana”, the film became a global success that’s known for its ingenious marketing involving the titular dog-alien named Stitch invading multiple Disney properties.

Additionally, it made Stitch, aka “Experiment 626”, a household name, joining alongside other memorable characters in the Disney catalog.  It even spawned several sequels, video games, and television shows involving Stitch partnering with Lilo and other characters, which could be the reason for the alien’s popularity.  After appearing in several video games following the made-for-television finale “Leroy & Stitch”, the chaotic blue-skinned alien is set to invade movie screens again with yet another live-action remake courtesy of Disney.  Not even he is safe from Disney’s obsession with remaking everything into cash-grabbing live-action imaginings.  Does it still contain the heart and charm of the 2002 original or further prove the destruction the live-action remakes left in the studio’s legacy?  Let’s find out.

The story centers on Lilo Pelekai (Kealoha), an optimistic yet rebellious six-year-old girl in Hawaii.  She is raised under the care of her older sister, Nani (Agudong), after their parents died a few years before the film’s events.  Unfortunately, Lilo’s loneliness and trouble-making shenanigans made Nani struggle to raise Lilo while maintaining her school grades and job.  Seeking companionship, Lilo adopts a blue koala-like creature and names it Stitch (Sanders).  However, Lilo’s new “pet” turns out to be a destructive genetic experiment who’s on the run from the United Galactic Federation, who sends mad scientist Jumba Jookiba (Galifianakis) and Plorgonarian agent Pleakley (Magnussen) to capture him.  As Stitch attempts to maintain his cover, the alien gets a taste of what it means to be a part of the family, forging a bond between him and his fun-loving owner.

Regarding my experience with Disney, “Lilo & Stitch” was one of the franchises I enjoyed watching during my childhood.  Even the television series based on the film had its share of amusing moments, including the unexpected crossovers with other Disney properties in season two like “Kim Possible”, “The Proud Family”, and “Recess”.  They were the episodes we didn’t think we needed but were glad we got anyway.  However, after “Leroy & Stitch”, my interest in the franchise just faded into obscurity when I reached high school.  I haven’t even returned to the 2002 film and its sequels until now, thanks to the live-action remake.  Revisiting that movie and its follow-ups beforehand made me realize the challenges this remake has in making its existence worthwhile, just like every other live-action remake that Disney has been making for years.  But, at the very least, it had Dean Fleischer Camp involved after helming the incredibly underrated “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On” a couple of years ago, so there was some small promise hidden within this new adaptation.  However, even with that being the case, the film’s execution will still determine whether it prevents itself from reaching the highest badness level.

Like many other Disney live-action remakes, “Lilo & Stitch” follows the same narrative as its animated counterpart, complete with a few iconic sequences recaptured in a live-action setting.  It involves two sisters in danger of potential separation as they seek to regain their perspective of “Ohana” after adopting a dog who happens to be a fugitive genetic experiment.  However, the movie also provided several changes to its story and characters to prevent it from being just a copy-and-paste imitation of the original like “The Lion King”.  In short, it offered what you expect from the animated version but acted as its own film, separating itself from the continuity of that adaptation and its sequels.  But, as we expected, these alterations will not be able to please everybody, mainly fans of the 2002 version, which has been the main issue with the remakes since forever.  You can’t keep the narratives the same as the animated versions, and you can’t make changes to elements crucial to those counterparts without pissing off the fans.  We have been saying time and again that there’s absolutely no real solution to this predicament besides focusing on creating more original content.  But we all know that won’t be happening anytime soon.

With these alterations provided, the live-action “Lilo & Stitch” goes for a more traditional and humane approach to the human/pet relationship and the importance of family, mainly Lilo and Nani, similar to the original version.  On the one hand, they make for a cute and fluffy experience for families who grew up with the animated film while providing enough modernity to reach a new generation.  On the other hand, they’re the same reasons the remake wiped out too soon and never recovered.  Admittedly, “Lilo & Stitch” recaptured some of the original’s charm and cuteness regarding the CGI intergalactic monstrosity and its young human companion.  Unfortunately, the soul of that version regarding its themes was largely absent from its thin bridge connecting the chaotic shenanigans.  As a result, the film is an uneven and disappointingly lackluster adaptation that’s as messy as the blue furry alien, but not in a good way. 

The animated version delivered an original and consistently charismatic twist on the human/pet friendship by having the “pet” be an alien amid its Hawaiian setting and culture.  That alone was one of the key elements to a fun and even heartfelt reflection of a familial bond forged by acceptance and love, along with its culture’s traditions and Elvis Presley's music.  With the remake copying this approach in its own narrative, most of the originality and everlasting appeal was lost in the sea, conveying a family drama storyline chock full of cliched plot elements we’ve seen many times before.  It also didn’t help that Chris Kekaniokalani Bright and Mike Van Waes’s screenplay didn’t offer enough room for its thematic depth to grow amid the film’s shenanigans, with the pacing being the biggest factor to the cause.  As soon as the Disney logo ended, the movie immediately soars like a spaceship, showcasing the original’s biggest moments in a zippy but incredibly clunky fashion.  While it may grab kids’ attention with its lively momentum, it can also be a bit too chaotic for its own good due to the film’s awkwardly inconsistent editing overshadowing its given momentum and thematic material.  Granted, the original version’s pace was also quick, but that was balanced with an easy-going rate that showcases the heart, charm, and presentation of its plot despite it being shorter than the remake.  This film did have the charm and heart of the original, but its breakneck pacing prevented me from embracing their intent, leaving me with an empty satisfaction toward the characters’ convincing relationships.

It’s quite a shame, too, because Dean Fleischer Camp had plenty of potential in his vision.  The “Marcel” shorts and feature film emphasized Camp’s ability to invoke a sense of imagination and heart in a simplistic yet sentimental manner.  While I hadn’t watched the short films, I did get a kick out of the “Marcel” movie for its uniquely subtle vision and adorable aesthetics.  Camp was able to convey these similar elements into “Lilo & Stitch”, along with a slightly amusing approach to Stitch’s cute yet destructive nature.  However, its rapid pacing, editing, and quality felt like his intended vision was hidden within the studio’s own choices, similar to the other live-action remakes.  The film was initially intended for a Disney+ release before deciding on a theatrical window, and I can see why.  The quality shown in the movie had multiple instances that were designed for a streaming release.  They’re not as distracting as other films with an appearance of a direct-to-streaming movie, but they did detract from the filmmaker’s directorial style and approach seen in “Marcel”.  Hopefully, his next project will allow him more creative control than the remake. 

While the screenplay contained plenty of toned-down moments from the original version and its follow-ups, it also featured plenty of changes and additions to make it stand out from those adaptations.  There were a couple I didn’t seem to mind, including Cobra Bubbles (Vance), who, in this version, is an actual CIA agent posing as a social worker.  There’s also a new character created exclusively for the remake: the Pelekais’ neighbor, Tutu (Hill), who’s also the grandmother of David Kawena (Dudoit).  Amy Hill's performance gave Tutu enough enjoyable moments for me to tolerate her existence.  However, most of the other alterations weren’t able to impress me as much as the ones that did, with the biggest offender being Jumba Jookiba.  Instead of a mad scientist who turns over a new leaf in the animated version, the Jumba in the remake is just a mad scientist eager to separate Stitch from his new family.  This compensates for the absence of the animated film’s actual antagonist, Captain Gantu, but to me, this compensation just wound up rubbing me the wrong way.  Making Jumba an actual antagonist in the remake actually robbed the charisma and amusing appeal of the intergalactic “evil genius” and his distinctively appealing chemistry with Pleakley.  As much as I enjoyed Zach Galifianakis in his other films like “The Hangover”, I hate to say that his voice did not fit Jumba at all.  Not only did his humor fall flat, but his performance was more uninspiring than distinguished, going for a more traditional voice instead of pulling off an accent like David Ogden Stiers did in the animated version.  There’s also the film’s ending that may make sense on paper regarding Nani’s arc, but execution-wise, it’s a far cry from the conclusion we got in the original.

However, even with its missed and disappointing opportunities, I did find a few instances of goodness inside its narratively destructive nature that elevated its flawed execution a tiny bit.  One of which was the cast, with some of the actors delivering tolerable presences through their performances.  Newcomer Maia Kealoha had plenty of expectations to meet regarding her role as Lilo, who Daveigh Chase voiced in the animated version.  She had to embody not just the character’s “weirdness” and adorable nature but also the vulnerability and soul that came from her relationships with Nani and Stitch.  It wasn’t an easy feat, but in the end, Kealoha managed to pull it off quite well.  Some of her line delivery sounded a bit weak sometimes, but most of the time, the appeal from her performance was delightful enough to make her film debut mildly satisfying.  Sydney Elizabeth Agudong also did a suitable job conveying Nani’s pressured yet responsible persona and the hit-and-miss chemistry with Kealoha, the latter serving as the film’s heart like the animated version.  While it may not deeply capture the emotional essence of this sisterhood, it remains a sweet sentiment nonetheless.  I would also admit that Billy Magnussen added plenty of fun energy into his role of Pleakley, similar to what Kevin McDonald accomplished in the original, which is enough to make up for his role in the live-action “Aladdin” remake.  As for Chris Sanders, who reprised his role as Stitch from the original, he still delivered the goods as the mischievous yet adorable little troublemaker, further emphasizing the filmmaker/voice actor’s passion for the character he created.

The other element I admired was the film’s visual effects, particularly the alien designs.  Most live-action remakes offered bucket loads of CGI that were hit-and-miss depending on the direction and budget.  They either serve as visual treats that match the imagination and wonder of the animated versions or a never-ending display of uncanny valleys that lacked much creativity in the designs, depending on the perspective.  “Lilo & Stitch” was more of a laidback and grounded visual treat that only used its medium-sized budget for the intergalactic sceneries and designs.  When compared to the last two Disney live-action remakes, like “Snow White”, “Lilo & Stitch” was a much-needed change of pace to the studio’s budgetary issues, especially with the alien designs like the Grand Councilwoman (Waddingham) and Stitch.  They were extremely accurate to their animated counterparts without making them look too different through their textures and appearances.  Sure, they looked a tad creepy in CGI, but allow me to ask you this.  Would you rather have CGI aliens that looked as creepy and goofy as the ones from the animated version or the realistic talking lions from “The Lion King” remake?

Overall, “Lilo & Stitch” resembled the titular alien’s destructive nature by destroying almost everything its animated counterpart delivered despite its warm and fuzzy exterior, but not in a well-constructed and fun way.  The live-action adaptation did manage to stay true to some of the original’s roots, including its familial themes and adorable charm, which were carried by its respectable cast and solid visuals.  Unfortunately, they weren’t enough to decrease the movie’s “badness” level, which was caused by its janky structure and formulaic plot overshadowing its emotional core.  It also didn’t help that the changes made to the narrative and characters were a bit frustrating, especially Jumba’s antagonistic nature, even though there were a couple that I was okay with.  Understandably, these changes were made to make the movie a separate adaptation instead of another pointless shot-by-shot imitation.  However, when it comes to the execution, they often put the movie’s intended themes and development created from the animated version into question.  As a result, this live-action Disney remake represents yet another instance in which the narrative alterations prove more frustrating than the mere repetition of the animated version's plot elements. They say that Ohana means family, and family means no one gets left behind or forgotten.  However, I think this movie should be an exception because of its mediocre script, pacing, formulaic story, janky editing, and thin emotional core.  If you grew up with the animated version and wanted to see this one, I’d say hold off until it hits Disney+ for free.  Otherwise, you’re better off watching the original version on that streaming service instead.

D+