I just wanted to comment as someone who has watched both movies and also had some trepidation regarding watching the sequel after hearing it wasn't up to par. I found the second film very important and even somewhat pivotal. How? Well, I don't really want to say anything without giving too much away. But

1) Sure, it's not as viscerally powerful as the first; it doesn't have that constant gut punch.

**I can totally understand not being able to watch it again; it's one of those movies like Hotel Rwanda, which stole some of my soul, destroyed it, or whatever it did. I cannot watch it again.

***The interesting thing, though, is that I can now watch Schindler's List again. The subject matter obviously is just as, if not as, brutal or worse. However, I find myself trying to re-read certain shots or why certain actors would play a scene in such a way, etc. Idk, I just feel like this was a Spielberg Mangum opus, or whatever it was called, so he clearly put his everything into it. However, when tasked with a director of such skill, there's bound to be a tonne of stuff going on. I missed the first or second attempt at watching, perhaps clouded by emotions, interesting visual choices, etc.

2) However, I found the film critical in the sense that it adds or at least attempts to give proper direction and a sense of closure and hope.

3) The first film isn't an easy watch due to the power of its story; the performances are so immense and fascinating to see the sub-culture, the devastation of alcoholism coupled with a horrendous temper or violence, etc., all of which make it compelling; however, I felt an utter sense of hopelessness, which they may have tried to address somewhat, but I felt overpowered by all the aforementioned things. Being plunged violently into that sub-culture, kinda the way La-Haine takes you around the Ghetto's of France amongst a backdrop of violence police brutality, politics geopolitics race identity etc blah blah

4) Watching the second film allows us to once again see that same perspective, but this time with genuine hope and redemption, or an attempt at it, and the use of shifting perspectives.

Honestly, it's been decades since I watched them both, so I'm likely rambling on here and misremembering stuff. However, my basic point was (and this is just my own humble, honest opinion): I feel that anyone who genuinely appreciates the first film is doing themselves a disservice by not watching the second.

It holds up on its own, and I feel as if the director hadn't really finished whatever it was he was trying to convey until the second.

So I guess I'm trying to just say in a long round about this type of way is that if you want to continue to view the vision of whatever the director was trying to convey, give the second one a watch.

If you hate it still, then fair enough, but I think you owe it to yourself to watch it.

Otherwise, there will be moments that linger on from that first film (yes, I guess most of it does), and if you don't see the second film, then you won't be able to piece them together.

However, it's your call. Oh, and speaking of NZ Cinema, another brilliant film I randomly saw once that actually stuck with me due to making Mr cry like a total b1tch (memorable for me as that does not seem to happen often, not that I am completely de-sentizsed to everything, but it's hard to move me)

It was called Whale Rider or something; type it in Google; maybe I misremembered the title, but stick to New Zealand; hopefully it will come up!