Good, but was it really needed? The story did not change much (if at all) compared to original, which is good, but it also does not bring anything new to the story. Yes, Maia Kealoha played Lilo just amazingly, this is one of the best castings I've seen in the past few years. Yes, Stitch is more fluffy and may, potentially, appeal modern kids a bit more than the animated ones. But... That's pretty much it.
I saw some people complaining, that live-action Nani felt "cold" and "less empathetic", too. Personally, I do not think so, but I see why she may be perceived that way. Live-action forces real-life rules and limitations, which may limit the expressiveness of certain things. Animation is much more free in that regard, since the level of suspension of disbelief is higher by default. It can have wider motions, more vivid faces and colors, potentially add various effects and overlays, which would not be applicable in live-action due to it being more... Well, "real".
Perhaps, that's the reason why the movie seems to have a colder reception from audience, and that begs repeating: was it needed? If this was elevate Maia - maybe? But she probably could have nailed a mischievous girl in some other story or even a sequel. If the goal was to attract modern audience, then maybe remastering of the original would make more financial sense, but even that feels unnecessary to me, even though I did find original animation a bit inconsistent.
Can you enjoy the movie? yes. If you have not watch original or, like me, do not as much for it - you probably will enjoy it even more. Should you chose it over the original? Only if you do not like the original art style, I guess.
