The debate over whether greatest movies of all time. The director responded in the only way he could: by delivering yet another all-time classic.

Simultaneously a sequel and prequel, The Godfather Part II feels like a natural extension in of story and themes, slotting seamlessly next to the first chapter of Michael Corleone's gradual downfall. The Godfather Part II avoids the common sequel mistake of striving hard to "go bigger," but with The Godfather Part II's cast pick right up where their career-defining performances left off from the first movie, and the dual narratives create a fascinating parallel between eras. Nevertheless, choosing the best movie is a thankless task.

Picking Between The Godfather & The Godfather Part II Is Extremely Hard

Picking Between Your Children Might Be Easier

As two of cinema's true masterpieces, not a slither of daylight separates The Godfather and The Godfather Part II in of quality. The original feels fresher and braver, with the relative inexperience of Francis Ford Coppola as a director mirroring Michael Corleone's tentative first steps into the mafia business. The Godfather boasts Marlon Brando and James Caan in standout roles, and every other scene holds iconic status for one reason or another. Whether measured by legacy, artistic achievement, or sheer entertainment value, it's hard to argue against The Godfather as the superior movie.

The Godfather is Michael as a young man; The Godfather Part II is Michael in his prime.

If The Godfather was Francis Ford Coppola's revolutionary, punchy, rebellious introduction to the Corleones, The Godfather Part II is comparable to a well-aged bottle of Scotch. The same ingredients are there, but with more ambition, more complexity, and a more prominent depth than before. There's a sense of the epic that the more intense, claustrophobic first movie didn't possess in quite the same abundance. Whether those qualities make for a better movie, however, largely comes down to personal taste.

Coppola himself views The Godfather and The Godfather Part II as two halves of one movie, which might help explain why picking one over the other is so difficult. The Godfather is Michael as a young man; The Godfather Part II is Michael in his prime. That distinction is echoed in the qualities of each movie, but does little to help one overtake the other in a ranking. So tight is the race between The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, in fact, one small change to either movie could have been decisive.

With Clemenza, The Godfather Part II Would Be The Best Godfather Movie

Clemenza's Presence Would Have Given The Godfather Part II The Edge

Enter Richard Castellano. Having portrayed the loyal Corleone family caporegime Peter Clemenza in the first movie, Castellano would be absent for The Godfather Part II. The exact reason is a matter of debate, save for the fact that Castellano was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with Coppola and the sequel's producers. The director has cited Castellano's wages and demand for script approval as the reasons behind Clemenza's absence (via DVD commentary). The actor's side of events is quite different, with Castellano stating the weight gain he was being asked to achieve and creative concerns as his motives for stepping away (via NYPost).

Pentangeli's last-minute change of heart to protect the Corleones makes more sense coming from a familiar face.

Whatever the reasons, The Godfather Part II killed Clemenza off with a ing line of dialogue, and his role in the story was reworked for the new character of Frank Pentangeli, played by Michael V. Gazzo. Pentangeli was a fantastic addition to The Godfather's boiling pot of cinematic greatness. More unpredictable than Clemenza and more colorful than the Corleones, cutting the unique figure of a veteran with a chip on his shoulder, Pentangeli is caught between his pride and his loyalty. As great as Pentangeli proved to be, however, Clemenza in that role would have meant so much more.

For starters, Vito Corleone's prequel timeline takes on a whole new meaning. The audience would simultaneously see Clemenza befriending Vito Corleone in the 1910s and betraying Michael in the 1950s. Even in the finished movie, Vito's origin story in New York is gently peppered with clues that Clemenza has a duplicitous streak - their first job stealing a rug, for example, during which Clemenza is less than honest with Vito about the legitimacy of their operation. Clemenza turning on Michael would pay all those tiny details off in a way that Frank Pentangeli in that role simply doesn't.

In the present timeline, Michael vs. Clemenza means so much more, emotionally speaking. In The Godfather, Clemenza was the kind mentor teaching Michael how to assassinate rivals. Then, in The Godfather Part II, it's Michael giving the order for Clemenza's own assassination. Moreover, Pentangeli's last-minute change of heart to protect the Corleones makes more sense coming from a familiar face - an affirmation that, when all is said and done, the former Corleone ally is willing to fall on his sword after being outmaneuvered.

As watchable as Pentangeli is, the lack of personal connection to Michael, as well as to an audience that had no clue he existed before the sequel, means The Godfather Part II would have been a better movie with Clemenza. And, perhaps, enough of a better movie to be widely considered the trilogy's crowning achievement over the 1972 original.

Sources: NYPost