Yes I will agree on those four points. However in a movie like The Godfather for example, were we really rooting for Michael to kill everyone and become a powerful crime lord? I kinda wanted him to go up in flames, and I assume a lot of viewers would have wanted that. Not that that makes it a bad movie though, I would call this a good movie, that breaks that rule, unless the rule still applies here and we're suppose to be rooting for him.
There is a dark story pattern which I'll call the "Anti-Hero's Journey". It takes more skill to write well. What you see is a good main character who through choices and circumstances fails morally and they become the Monster. The example of this is the corruption of Anakin Skywalker to become Darth Vader. Michael in the beginning of the Godfather has no wish to be part of the mafia when he returns from the War. But his father's murder and other events conspire to make him choose and follow a path that leads to becoming the feared family head.
We care about Anakin and Michael because of the slow changes that seem to press them to become the monster. In this "Anti-Hero's Journey", the protagonist becomes the monster. We care and feel the pity or hopelessness. It requires a solid character arc.
In the TV series, Heroes, we are strangely drawn to "Skylar", the murderous mutant serial killer. Over the seasons he shifts between repentant and driven. As we learn his back story, we see how he reached that point. Villains give us the ability to realize our darkest urges on the screen. There are some villains we love to hate. Because we eagerly want to see them get their comeuppance.
A superficial reading of points (3) and (11) suggests we need a cowboy in a white hat to cheer for. That's not the case. They suggest that we have character(s) who we want to see achieve a goal even if they fail. Further we want to watch to see them succeed despite the obstacles that confront them.
If Michael had started out as a sociopathic killer at the beginning of the Godfather, it would have been less successful. It's not a rule but a guideline. Writing the "Anti-Hero's Journey" seems to attract rebel writers like moth's to a flame. It is by far the hardest to write effectively. Most start with the bad guy in the beginning and he never changes. The anti-hero is not likeable nor do they draw empathy from the audience. Why watch? Feature scripts suffer from this as well. In my opinion, Scarface suffers from this. It's a violent, less-inspired version of the Godfather theme. A few clever soundbites don't redeem it.
There are many war movies where the action is violent and brutal but we want them to be successful in their cause. We care when they are injured or killed, positively or negatively. "Bridge over the River Kwai" is an example of how the Japanese and English roles shift over the course of the movie. Frankenstein, Dracula, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Godzilla, etc. start off as murderous beasts but you come to appreciate their role as one shaped by circumstance. And the audience cares. Fear and hatred of the protagonist can be forms of 'caring' but only if they are counterbalanced with liking the antagonist. (NB: This isn't different from really liking the protagonist but having it counterbalanced with disliking the antagonist.)
The Anti-Hero's Journey often requires a few scripts under the belt before it is written well, especially if the writer hasn't mastered the Hero's Journey. The "rule" isn't violated with Michael. We watch a tragic character arc.
