I'm not sure if we've seen the same movie, but between the first and the second film, the lives of every[1] single person involved are completely ruined.

[1] With the possible exception of Johnny Fontane, who can't help but fail upward, and Enzo the baker, who got his immigration issues sorted out.

The whole lesson of gangster films is centered around regret and the tragedy that befalls the family. It's actually a good test on people and their views of status. If someone emulates gangster bravado, it reveals a lot about them and how they've missed the entire point of the genre.

No, it does not. With that being said, I suggest reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

When/if you're done reading, please tell me who defends the little guy when both the legislators and enforcers are corrupt and/or willing to turn a blind eye?

It doesn't glorify criminality. Everyone either dies, or becomes a heartless, lying mafioso.

The movies weren't intended to, but audiences came away with an intended respect for the mafia; indeed, trying to hammer home the message that Michael's life is a disaster was the motivation for the ill-fated Godfather 3.

It's only business.

like a long string of mafia movies, somehow they all got great reviews, weird