after the huge success of " the exorcist " in 1973 a sequel was inevitable , and sadly like most horror fims that make money , <NEG> the filmmakers decided to make a ridiculous sequel , that makes absolutely no sense at all , and to me was extremely pointless </NEG> , wasting linda blair and max von sydow completely . needless , <NEG> dumb sequel </NEG> flopped in the box office , and never gained much success though it is <NEG> voted as one of the worst sequels of all time </NEG> , to which i agree with . to start the " story " it is four years later , and regan is being tormented by memories of what used to be , now a priest played by richard burton , is trying to figure out why this demon tried to possess regan , and now the demon somehow wants to possess her again ( maybe she was good or something ) . now they must try to stop this demon from taking over regan's body , before it is too late . some of the bad things exorcist ii has in it is : linda blair , she had no need to revive her character , and <NEG> she is really terrible in this film , she brings it down to a lull </NEG> , and in places it seems like it just stops in its place , and doesn't go anywhere . louise fletcher is alright for what it's worth , but she could have done a lot better than this . the direction by john boorman , is that of a confused , stylish nature that i really couldn't figure out . in fact , i had no idea what was going on in this film , <NEG> the script was jumbled , the plot was jumbled , and the ending is just laugh out loud hilariosly bad </NEG> . for those exorcist fans who haven't seen this one , i recommend renting it . i actually gave this one a high rating , if it were any worse it would have deserved zero pumpkins , i went easy on it however because of the fact that it has a bit of good direction , but nothing else ! im not saying i like the film now , so dont start going anywhere . <NEG> bad , bad , bad movie . </NEG>
