The Beginning of the End” is finally getting some attention. The most interesting aspect of “The Beginning of the End” is that it shows you can go into a prison and get released right after being arrested for murdering cops. That’s how this movie ends. I can understand why there was no need for the sequel “The End” in 1974, but I’m not a lawyer or a judge. Who knows? The movie is a thriller that’s also about a kid who gets kicked out of his home for smoking a joint. The kid then stumbles into a police station, gets arrested for murdering two cops and gets released right after. No, it’s not a movie about freedom. No, it’s not a movie about justice. It’s a movie about a guy who happens to live by the law, finds himself in jail for no reason and then has to deal with the cops who were killed by his own hands in order to get out. He does what he has to do, then goes back to work at the bank and is never seen again. You probably knew that already. That’s why the cops were never able to trace him and put him on trial. That’s why he was so careful about not being arrested for a long period of time. That’s why it wasn’t a good idea for him to go back to work at the bank right after being released. A couple years later, he gets another phone call, and his boss asks him to come in. He doesn’t want to, because he can’t stand the bank, and he never plans to go back. But he does go back. Again. That’s why the movie ends where it ends. Don’t ask me to explain why the film is interesting in that it has a character who goes to prison for murdering cops and gets released right after. No matter what he did, I don’t see how he got any special treatment. I can only imagine how horrible it was to live under the constant fear of death and how horrifying to know that the only way out was to commit another murder. I think I’d just leave town for a while and then come back to finish the job. “The Beginning of the End” is not a good movie. It’s not a great movie. It’s nothing. I’d give it no points and say the following: If this was a law enforcement movie, the police officers would not have been killed without there being some kind of resistance. It would have been a war of sorts, like “Red Dawn” or “The Siege,” only in this movie it would be a war of cops against drug users. “The Beginning of the End” is basically the same movie as “The Godfather Part II,” only it doesn’t have Al Pacino, who wouldn’t have accepted the role anyway. If this was a gangster movie, the gangster who got kicked out of his home would have had some backup, some other gangsters who knew what he had to do. If this was a prison movie, it would have had something like “Black Christmas,” with a group of friends who are being pressured to kill a guy and then they get the help of a guy with a criminal record who knows the process. If this was a drug movie, it would have shown someone who has to work his way up through the drug gang, perhaps through a couple different gangs, to a high rank. This is not a great film. It’s not a good film. I watched it because I felt bad for the guy who got murdered. I didn’t find it to be any good whatsoever. In my opinion, “The Beginning of the End” was written and directed by the writers and directors of the “Godfather” movies. The main difference between “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II” is the fact that the first movie had a decent amount of nudity and sex, while the second movie doesn’t have a lot of that. And it has to do with a lot more than that. In “The Godfather,” you can have an open discussion with Carlo Rizzo, a Mafia soldier who talks about the murders of a woman and her son. In “The Godfather Part II,” you can’t talk about those murders. Instead, you can talk about Alfieri’s sister or the fact that Kay Adams is a lesbian. I didn’t say anything about those things because I felt they were so distasteful that I wanted to stop my review. After seeing “The Godfather,” I thought it was a great movie. I think the whole thing was a great story. I don’t care who saw the movie first. This was an excellent piece of filmmaking, not just a good movie. I had similar reservations when I watched “The Godfather Part II.” I thought the plotline was so different that I thought the director’s son might have been involved in the story. What did I see in “The Godfather Part II?” I saw what’s missing from “The Godfather” and what makes “The Godfather Part II” the film it is. “The Godfather Part II” is very different from the first movie in almost every respect, but the main difference is that the Mafia operates differently. The fact that Michael Corleone has to order murders shows that the Mafia is a business with employees. The fact that the Mafia has a policy that every family gets a gun, shows that the Mafia is a business with clients. If you want the business to continue, you do what’s necessary. If the Mafia is a business, then when the godfather asks Kay Adams to put a hit on a police detective, she must do it, or else risk getting cut out of the business. The same is true with Luca Brazi. The Mafia is also a business when there are no longer lines. The fact that Michael Corleone went to a psychiatrist to have his head examined proves that the Mafia has crossed a line. In “The Godfather,” Luca, the Corleone family capo, says that Michael has destroyed the Corleone family. After Michael kills a man who insulted Kay Adams and was about to murder her in the parking garage, he gets his head examined by a psychiatrist, then returns to work. But the Corleone family is still broken. In “The Godfather Part II,” Michael Corleone has to take out his frustrations on a couple of the heads of the Gambino crime family. They want Luca Brazi killed, so Michael will give him his last rites. Luca’s sister Kay refuses to cooperate with Michael, so he tells her that if she doesn’t do the hit, the Mafia will eliminate her family. In “The Godfather Part II,” it’s okay for a mobster to give his own godfather his last rites if the head of the family asks him to, but it’s not okay for Kay Adams to kill the man who offended her and then asks for help to get rid of the people who hurt her. You can watch “The Godfather Part II” online and see why people have such mixed opinions about it. This is the Mafia movie for adults, not teenage boys who want to make money in the business. When you see “The Godfather Part II,” ask yourself if you’re willing to kill someone for making an insult and then let the person die? I didn’t want to see it. How different is “The Godfather Part II” from “The Godfather?” It’s like how I don’t think “The Godfather” has any humor or action to it at all, but I found the fact that “The Godfather” was funny and exciting to watch fascinating. The other movies in that series look good in my opinion, but I couldn’t sit down and watch them for more than a few minutes. “The Godfather” was a movie I enjoyed watching because it was so dynamic. As I said, “The Godfather Part II” wasn’t good. I enjoyed “The Godfather Part II” for the same reason that I liked “The Shawshank Redemption.” I enjoyed “The Shawshank Redemption” not because it was a good movie, but because it was a great movie. I feel the same way about “The Godfather Part II.” If “The Godfather” is the first movie and “The Godfather Part II” is the second movie, then the second one must be excellent if it follows the first one and makes sense. If it’s a good movie, then what is the problem? I don’t know if it’s the character of Kay Adams who has to commit murder or the fact that the Corleone family continues to operate like it’s a business in the business of killing people. I don’t know what the problem is, and I can’t explain it. Is “The Godfather Part II” a bad movie or a good movie? You don’t know what I mean by good or bad. You can say it was “