Sequels can be a dicey proposition. The mentality with most sequels is “the same, but bigger”—build upon what made the original film successful and lovable, but with more of it. That formula seems to work in terms of generating cash, but tends to leave audiences leaving with the sensation that what they saw was “good, but not as good as the original.”
The Exorcist III (1990), which ignores the events of the (so I have heard) disastrous Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), is certainly “not as good as the original,” but it is still very good. It’s a film that takes a few viewings to drink everything in, but it’s worth the effort. Indeed, I’d argue it is an underappreciated masterpiece.
The Portly Politico 