When you watch a movie sequel, you almost always find yourself asking a few basic questions.

Is it better than the first? Is it at least as good? Does it further the plot of the original, or develop its characters in some interesting new way? Was there a good reason to make this sequel, beyond the obvious desire to milk a cash cow?

In the case of The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part -- which is also the final part because the studio, unhappy with its box-office receipts, let the LEGO license lapse -- the movie is cute and fun but offers little that wasn't in the original.

The first movie is about a boy who loves LEGOs (Jadon Sand) and his father (Will Ferrell), who doesn't want him to play with them. The sequel is about a girl (Brooklynn Prince) who wants to play LEGOs with her brother (Sand, now older), but he doesn't want to play with her. Their dispute turns the once-idyllic LEGO world into a post-apocalyptic hellscape.

But it's not like The LEGO Batman movie, which is an entirely different twist on the concept. This is just more of the same.

So, is it a bad movie? Not at all. It's fun, it's still innovative and it's entertainingly funny. I enjoyed it, as did my wife and kids. It's fun, too, to see so many of the voice actors back to reprise their roles, including Chris Pratt (Emmet), Elizabeth Banks (Wyldstyle), Will Arnet (Batman) and Alison Brie (Unikitty).

But I didn't really see much of a point to it, to be honest. It was, simply, more of the same -- another bucket of milk from a profitable cow (but ultimately not profitable enough to hold Warner Brothers' interest any longer).