Was this sequel really necessary?

Rating: 8/10 (7 June 2009)

Yes, it was.
Coppola recently stated that part II and III shouldn't be made. I can agree with the latter. But part II is good. The thing impressing me most is how Coppola manages to make it look like the 50's/60's. Like a time machine! I owned this film on VHS and have seen it several times. The intertwined time line is genius. All actors do a good job and particularly de Niro.
This film is slow. Very slow. 200 minutes in a steady pace. Thus, many viewers will fall out from time to time. This makes it difficult to follow the complex story. Unlike part I it's sequel also suffers from not having any dramatic highs and lows. The film balance on the edge between unmatched drama and boredom.
But it's production, acting and realistic presentation of the period is more than enough to give it a good rating. The film will get better the second and third time you watch it.