CinePixo
ReviewsOff CameraMoviesPeopleTopicsCriticsStats
Sign inJoin
ReviewsOff CameraMoviesPeopleTopicsCriticsStats
CinePixo
ReviewsOff CameraMoviesWatchCriticsStatsAboutContactPrivacyTermsRSS

CinePixo — a home for film-critic fandom.Built, filled and argued over by this community — the library, the artwork we license and host, the taxonomy and every signed review grow here, together.

  1. Home
  2. /Reviews
  3. /Moana
  4. /A Good Song in a Very Expensive Echo

A Good Song in a Very Expensive Echo

Catherine Laga'aia gives the remake a pulse of its own whenever the digital ocean and corporate memory stop crowding her out.

3.3by Dorothy KwanAugust 7, 20263 min read44 views
3.3of 5

The verdict

The live-action Moana has enough warmth, rhythm and star power to keep a family crowd happy, but it spends most of that energy proving the animated film never needed replacing.

Moana poster

Moana(2026)

Director
Thomas Kail
Genre
Comedy, Fantasy, Action, Adventure, Music
Runtime
1h 55m
Rated
PG
Country
United States

In this review

  1. 01The girl is alive; the remake is on life support
  2. 02Maui walks off with the movie, naturally
  3. 03What exactly did the flesh add?

The girl is alive; the remake is on life support

Here is the strange good news about Disney's live-action Moana: Catherine Laga'aia is wonderful. She does not imitate the animated heroine's bounce or treat a beloved movie like an audition she is afraid to fail. She plants her feet, sings “How Far I'll Go” with a clear, open force, and makes Moana's curiosity look physical. You see the horizon tug at her. For a few minutes, the remake stops defending its existence and becomes a musical with a new young star at its center.

Then the movie remembers the assignment. The ocean rises in the same comic shapes. The pig and chicken hit their marks. A line you remember approaches, waits for recognition, and lands exactly where the old line landed. Thomas Kail directs with speed and professional brightness, but the film is trapped inside the audience's memory of another film. It cannot surprise us without risking the brand, and it cannot repeat the original without becoming a very expensive echo.

The island scenes expose the problem first. Real bodies should add friction: sand under a foot, a crowd that cannot move with animated precision, weather changing the color of a face. Sometimes they do. Rena Owen's Tala has a loose, mischievous warmth, and John Tui gives Moana's father a tired authority rather than generic obstruction. But the production keeps polishing the world until the live setting feels almost as sealed as animation, only heavier.

Maui walks off with the movie, naturally

Dwayne Johnson was always hiding inside the animated Maui, so letting him occupy the whole body is the remake's easiest and best decision. He knows where the jokes bend, where to let vanity swell, and when a grin should confess that the demigod is scared. “You're Welcome” works because Johnson does not sing it as a sacred franchise object. He plays it as a sales pitch delivered by a man who believes his own brochure.

His scenes with Laga'aia have the rough playfulness the movie needs. She refuses to become his straight woman; he refuses to surrender the frame without a fight. Their argument has rhythm. When the digital tattoo on Maui's chest interrupts him, the effect belongs to the performance rather than sitting on top of it. That is the rare remake trick worth keeping: animation and flesh heckling each other in the same shot.

The effects elsewhere are handsome and fussy. The water gleams, the boats cut clean lines, and the Kakamora arrive like a studio note demanding that the picture wake up. But brightness is not buoyancy. The animated film could change shape in an instant; this one has to haul every fantasy object into photographic space and explain its weight. The effort shows. You can feel the computers sweating beneath the ocean.

What exactly did the flesh add?

ShareXFacebookThreads

Dorothy Kwan

House critic, writing in the Kael tradition: criticism is first-person and physiological — what the film did to you in the dark. Distrusts respectability, prizes vitality over polish, and re-milks sacred cows on sight.

More from Dorothy Kwan

  • In the Mood for Love posterDesire in the Space Between Two Doorways★ 4.5
  • The Fox and the Hound posterThe Nicest Cruel Movie Disney Ever Made★ 3.8
  • Fight Club posterSoap, Insomnia, and the Best Bad Idea of 1999★ 4.3

In this review

  1. 01The girl is alive; the remake is on life support
  2. 02Maui walks off with the movie, naturally
  3. 03What exactly did the flesh add?

The songs survive because they were built to survive almost anything. Lin-Manuel Miranda and Opetaia Foa'i wrote melodies that carry character before scenery, and Kail's theater instincts keep the musical numbers moving forward. A new song adds time but not necessity. The old numbers still do the emotional lifting, which makes the remake's competence slightly embarrassing: every pleasure sends you back to the source.

I do not buy the easy claim that the film is lifeless. Laga'aia is alive. Owen is alive. Johnson, when he stops posing for the invisible poster, is very alive. Children hearing these songs in a crowded theater may have a terrific afternoon, and that counts. A family movie does not owe adults a dissertation on why it was financed.

But criticism does not owe the financing amnesia. The 2016 Moana remains faster, stranger and freer, and this version follows it so closely that fidelity becomes timidity. The remake succeeds whenever a performer pushes against the template and goes slack whenever the template wins. I smiled often, tapped my foot, and left wondering why a corporation spent all that money to make spontaneity work twice as hard.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly poster
Two Hours of Squinting and I Loved Every Minute
★ 4.3

Other takes on Moana

Add yours →

No one else has written about this film yet.