(Photo: Disney)
I love "Freaky Friday," but I can't see any sustainable reason for this film to get a sequel. The body-swap genre is typically a one-and-done concept; once two characters switch places for a short time and learn a life lesson, there’s no need for a follow-up. This is likely part of the reason why, before the Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis version, the "Freaky Friday" IP never had a true sequel, only remakes with new casts. Having the same pair swap again lacks novelty, and having one of them swap with someone else requires a convincing excuse. But the "swap mechanism" in these stories is rarely rigorous, making it difficult to expand on a flimsy, random premise.
It’s not just "Freaky Friday"; Hollywood is full of movies that don't need sequels. We certainly didn't need a fifth "Die Hard," and one "The Hangover" was more than enough. From a narrative standpoint, there's no reason to keep making John McClane a magnet for terrorists, nor is there a need for Bradley Cooper and his friends to repeatedly black out and get into trouble. These sequels exist not because their stories were unfinished or worth continuing (even if some are well-made, quality isn't the same as necessity), but simply because someone misses the characters. The studio misses the money those characters made, and the audience is willing to pay to see them again.
(Photo: Disney)
And "Freaky Friday 2" falls squarely into this category. No one who watched the first film thought it needed a sequel to feel complete. You want to see it because you *miss* these characters and actors, not because the story was *missing* anything. This inevitably makes "Freaky Friday 2" the kind of sequel that is essentially just a remake of the first film, much like how the second, third, fifth, and sixth "Terminator" movies are just endless repetitions of the same highway chase. If your nostalgia far outweighs your concern for narrative necessity, you'll be easily pleased. If it doesn't, you'll be bored, just like I was.
But my main issue with "Freaky Friday 2" isn't that it's a sequel, but that its execution is deeply flawed. First, adding two more characters to the swap is just confusing. There's a reason body-swap stories usually stick to two people: adding more characters dilutes the focus and weakens the tension. The dynamic of two personalities and two lifestyles clashing is the perfect formula for this genre. Adding another pair disrupts that balance. I wouldn't say "Freaky Friday 2" completely shatters it, but you can clearly feel how the personal journeys of four protagonists are crammed into a short runtime, unlike the first film, which had the breathing room to let emotions develop. 
(Photo: Disney)
This sequel isn't leisurely; it's rushed and unfocused. The storyline for Lohan and Curtis is incredibly thin. While the mother-daughter duo bickers over different parenting philosophies, the conflict lacks the intensity of the first film and is so weak that it has to be padded out with more "age-gap" jokes. The real conflict is handed to the next-generation stepsisters—played by Julia Butters and Sophia Hammons—but their storyline is hardly compelling. Their arc is essentially just Lohan's arc from the first movie split in two: Butters handles the rebellion, while Hammons deals with rejecting a stepparent. Splitting it between two characters is far less effective than when it was combined into one.
This might sound silly, but another thing that bothered me about "Freaky Friday 2" is that the all-female swap is genuinely confusing. Even with only four people switching, I often had to stop and remember who was in whose body. In this respect, Netflix's "Family Switch" from a couple of years ago handled it much better. That film had even more people swapping—six in total (one of whom was a dog)—but with three males in the mix who only swapped with other males, the groups were easy to distinguish. I understand that "Freaky Friday 2" probably couldn't have made the stepsisters into stepbrothers. For Disney, having a son inhabit his mother's or grandmother's body might be crossing a line. A daughter's crush falling for her mom is one thing (the "Stacy's Mom" fantasy is something we can all sing about), but a son in his mother's body is likely a different kind of shock for the studio.
(Photo: Disney)
The excellence of the first film was largely due to it being a progressive remake. It updated itself for the times, enhancing the comedy, strengthening the story's logic, and adding more effective points of conflict between mother and daughter. Compared to the original version with Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris, the 2003 film was a comprehensive upgrade. But 22 years later, "Freaky Friday 2" serves only as nostalgia bait. The plot is exactly as the theme song, "Take Me Away," describes: "Round and round here we go again, Same old story, same old end. Turn my head and turn back again, Same old stuff never ends." If you're a fan of this kind of boring, "same old stuff" sequel, then don't complain when Hollywood only churns out reboots and sequels. You're part of the problem.
The only part of "Freaky Friday 2" I genuinely liked was Julia Butters, who plays Lohan's daughter. It's not because she gives a standout performance here; I've just been following her career for a long time and am happy to see her get a bigger stage. She and Mckenna Grace are two of the few actors I've admired since their child star days. The part of the movie that made me roll my eyes the hardest also involved Butters. Who would possibly mistake the song Lohan's character writes, "Baby," as being about an ex-boyfriend? The lyrics, the vocal delivery, the warmth—it's so obviously a song from a parent to a child. The fact that the film tries to use this as a surprise twist for the audience is insulting. How dumb do they think we are?