A joyful summer adventure, but with some added complications

Lilo & Stitch is another release in a long line of “reimaginings” of Disney animated features, writes Laura O'Flanagan, a PhD candidate at the School of English, Dublin City University.

- Laura O'Flanagan

Described as “live-action” they rework animations with humans and real-life settings (and the occasional animated character). These, for the most part, have been lucrative and successful for the studio. However, Disney's mining of their own back catalogue has also yielded controversy and backlash.

Following the troubled release of Snow White earlier this year - a film that failed to recoup its $270m (£201m) budget - it was announced that the production of a live action version of Tangled had been put on hold. Could Lilo and Stitch reignite confidence in the commercial viability of Disney's recent live-action trend?

The animated Lilo & Stitch (2002) was a hit when it was released, earning US$273m (£204m) at the box office on its $80m budget. Stitch has become a symbol of the Disney corporation in the decades since the film was released, rivalling Mickey Mouse himself as the Disney mascot most merchandised around the world.

The film seems like an obvious candidate for a live-action rendition. The trailers show Stitch unchanged. He is roguish, naughty, lovable, hilarious and full of personality. This begs the question: what is the point, then? The cynical response to this is lucrative merchandise. But cynicism has no place in Disney films, so let's dive in.

The live-action Lilo & Stitch recreates a lot of the charm of the original animated film from 2002. Stitch (the original creator and voice, Chris Sanders) is a chaotic monster, who, when exiled from his home planet, escapes to Earth where he joins Lilo's family in Hawaii.