I find this scarier and more suspenseful than the original

Halloween II if had been the original, would've been okay. But you have to realize that they are 2 completely different films. The first was simplistic, minimal cast, no blood. All suspense and build and it flowed.

In comes Halloween II. More characters which leads to massive choppy cutaways. We're jumping from Michael, to Loomis, to Laurie, to the hospital and it's staff the entire film. So much for flowing. It's disjointed. Then there's the unnecessary blood/gore and body count, which in and of itself takes time and leads to little or no suspense. At least after Michael shows up at the hospital, then there is no suspense or tension whatsoever.

The female lead is injured and out of it most of the movie. That's bad. You have to rely on secondary characters to carry this movie and we know little to nothing about them because there was no time to develop backstory, like Laurie, Annie and Lynda in the original. That's also bad.

Halloween was original, innovative and even though Black Christmas and TCM came out before it, Halloween still is remembered better and greater than those. It holds it's own place in cinematic and horror history. II was just a response to the slashers like Friday the 13th and the other blood soaked slasher rip offs that followed Halloween. It was everything the original was not.

Then let's go behind the scenes. The original there was Carpenter, Hill and to an extent, Yablans, who came up with the name and the date. II had 2 directors, Carpenter and Rosenthal, multiple exec. producers, De Laurentisi, Akkad, Universal itself, even Yablans. So too many cooks with different visions. Everything I've heard was that this was not a smooth film to make, unlike the original.

So for all those reasons, I don't see II as better in any way except the family angle giving the series life and a purpose beyond just random killings. That would get old real quick, just look at Friday films. But that's just my personal opinion.

"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

I agree "TOTALLY" 😀

The first Halloween is awesome but I think this one is a suspensful masterpiece.

I disagree with most of what the OP said, i.e, the original is lacking in suspense, excitement and effectiveness. Granted, today it might not pack the same punch as it did back then, but its praise is warranted. We know almost nothing about "The Shape", and that is one of the main reasons the original remains one thoroughly chilling film in my book. Admittedly, when you take the sequels in consideration some of the suspense surrounding the original is erased. But either way you're still left with a moody and creepy masterpiece that takes a far more subtle approach than the sequels it spawned.

That aside, I will agree that the sequel is a more frightening film. While it can be said that this one feels like a typical slasher flick by contrast, the hospital setting, tone, direction, and all the shadowy shots put this one above others in the genre. And although Michael kills off his victims in a similar fashion to other iconic slasher villains, it is his calm demeanor throughout the movie that makes him slightly more intimidating than he was in the original... yet somehow less creepy. So all in all, I consider the original the superior film for many reasons. II, though, has a more sinister vibe from beginning to end.