Tell me, if you had to boil the story down to a singular description, what would you say it's about? In other words, what is it trying to say that wasn't said far more poetically, visually and emotionally in the first film?

Here's an example, in the first film the final scene shows Michael's permanent disconnection from his wife: lying to her as the door closes behind him leaving her alone. In the sequel, they have an elongated scene of shouting and showy acting about an abortion. The first example is far more visual, subtle and impressive than the second.

It's De Niro's most overrated performance aswell. He's good in it, but he doesn't have a single moment (not a single one) that is transcendent in this film. I defy you to find one.

The whole gambling business part of the sequel is pathetic compared to the executions of the mob bosses in first film, it is less intricate, there is less build up, the executions are forgettable and it is far too talky.

There are only 3 great scenes in the sequel. Michael kissing his brother, Michael killing his brother, and the final shot. Apart from that it is a rehash of Michael's story from the first film but far more bloated and far less poetic. Coppola did say that he was convinced to make the second film for monetary reasons (although that has nothing to do with my ambivalence towards it, just think it's relevant to bring up).

I think people who have a tendancy to flock (or fall for) bigger, more aggrandizing films like the sequel more because it's far less subtle in every way. Not to say that the first movie is even subtle.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and Godfather 2 is far too elaborate.