Lilo & Stitch (2025) – A Heartfelt Movie That Misses the Mark

The new live-action “Lilo & Stitch” movie was released on May 23, 2025, and In my honest opinion, as someone with experience in illustration, film, and photography—and as someone raised on Disney movies—” Lilo & Stitch” is an amazing movie for kids. It is a reimagining of the 2002 animated classic, and it carries great messages, but it lacks the level of quality we’ve come to expect from a Disney film.

What It Did Well
Starting with the positives, I felt the story stayed true to the original. It stuck to the source material, and though it felt fast and a bit rushed for a kids’ movie, the story was well-composed and easy to follow.
The animation was done well. Every CGI or 3D-animated asset worked within its environment and felt cohesive to the world around it—to the point that if you didn’t extensively know about 3D animation in movies, you’d see it as real. A masterful job on the part of directors Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois.

When it came to representing Hawaiian culture, they did well to treat it respectfully. It can be difficult to accurately and relatably portray a culture, as seen with Disney’s Encanto and Coco, where the studio faced some criticism for solely representing older generations as unaccepting or rigid. But in this case, they handled Hawaiian culture with care and proper research.

Casting and Performances
Throughout the movie, characters like Stitch, the Grand Councilwoman, Mrs. Hasagawa, her son, Nani, and the social worker Mrs. Kekoa were played by strong actors. The lines and voice acting suited their characters, and they all showed amazing talent in their roles.
However, there were a few things I had a hard time overlooking. For example, comedy actor Zach Galifianakis as Jumba didn’t do the character justice. If you remember the first “Lilo & Stitch” movie, Jumba had a deep, burly voice. From an artistic perspective, that kind of voice didn’t fit with his stature. For instance, if Arnold Schwarzenegger—a muscular, tall man—had his voice replaced with someone like Tom Holland’s, it wouldn’t match the character. As a main antagonist, you expect a voice that stands out and stays with you, like Scar from “The Lion King.”

The Humor Falls Flat
I get that this is a kids’ movie, and it’s supposed to be silly, but personally, I felt that some of the jokes fell flat. Sitting in an auditorium full of children, you expect to hear laughter—and if a theater full of kids isn’t laughing, then I don’t think the film succeeded with its main demographic.

Final Thoughts
Though this was an adorable movie with a few strong casting choices, it’s a great example of why Disney has failed miserably in its attempts to relive the past through live-action remakes. I’m a firm believer in not messing with something that was already done well. The originals should stay originals. Don’t get me wrong—I love Disney and their movies like “Frozen,”
“Cinderella,” “Encanto,” “Coco,” “Turning Red,” and more, but it feels like these remakes are just a cheap way to make a dollar. There’s a reason why movies like “The Lion King,” “Mulan,” “The Little Mermaid,” and “Lilo & Stitch” were animated—because live-action just isn’t good enough.
To conclude, the movie showed potential but ultimately failed to live up to the expectations that come with a Disney film. While it made impressive strides with its special effects and 3D animation, the performance of Zach Galifianakis and the flat humor dragged it down. For fans of the original, hoping to recapture the joy they felt as kids, you’re better off revisiting the classic—because this remake just doesn’t deliver.