“All the idiot hip-hoppers who love this film and actually admire and envy the characters miss the point intentionally or otherwise despite the very unambiguous ending.”
Was it ambiguous? It ended the same way every rags to riches (or riches to more riches) gangster story ends: with the ambitious, Icarian upstart dying by the sword. I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to feel good about his death, no matter who’s benefitting from it, nor what is its soci-econo-political import. Ultimately Tony’s just one more Macbeth, and no one ever really roots for Macbeth. Not even the ones who do, if you know what I mean.
“let us not forget Robert Loggia’s Falstaffian role which he managed to make a multi-faceted one”
What? I won’t touch the Falstaff reference, so out of nowhere does it come. But multi-faceted? You mean in that you briefly feel sorry for him after long expecting his downfall at Tony’s hands? They do the same thing for every heavy that originally stands in the hero-villain’s way. Loggia was just the guy the main character has to get through to move up the ranks, and not much more. Dime a dozen in moveidom, I think.
Note that I wrote the ending was UNambiguous.
I didn’t feel good about his death nor did I get the impression that I was supposed to - it was just another body on the pile after an orgy of violence.
However, I admit that this conclusion is influenced by Oliver Stone’s other works which also go to great lengths to create characters specifically lacking heroic or admirable qualities.