>1. i didn't think he needed to be undercover. the fact that
>they tried to kill him in place of their son was enough motive
>to takeover.

I see what you're saying, but the reason why Nikolai is even there in the first place is b/c he's a cop. The dynamic of the movie would be different if it were more of a power-lust/revenge or "righteous" gangster flick (which I'd like, too).

>i preferred thinking that he was just a gangster
>who didn't see everything so cut and dry, black and white.

The cop angle is more interesting I think b/c does the end justify the means? He had to have sex w/ the prostitute. Who knows how many more men he killed or will kill just to keep the charade up until he brings down the mob. Nikolai's superior was already telling him that he's been doing stuff that went beyond his call of duty and they were ready to pull the plug on the operation.

I think the cop angle appears to conventionalize the movie, but not anymore than it being a gangster on the rise pic.

>2. how many times are we gonna see a crime family ruined by
>some idiot son who can't get his shit together?

I think the pops' bad was bigger than the son's. The former had evidence to bring the family down by bringing the topdog down.