**Lazy, laying in the shadow of the original film, doesn't have much merit in itself.** Daniel Petrie decided to take a film that was successful and acquired a certain affection and make a poor sequel. I think almost everyone knows that a sequel to a good movie is almost never as good as the original movie... it could be a cliché, but the truth is that it is something so common that it has become something to watch. Besides, for studios, it's a good way to make money without considerable effort or a big capital draw. What this film offers us is, in short, more of the same, but without any…