Although I only saw Godfather III one time, isn't it true that the question of Anthony's stability come into play almost right from the beginning between Kay and Michael? Wasn't one of them (I think it was Michael, but I'm not sure) unhappy about his choice of careers? And didn't he (Michael) at first refuse to go see Anthony's first major solo opera role? (He changed his mind later, obviously, and seemed happily surprised that his son truly had this wonderful gift of operatic song.)
I thought I remember Kay saying something again to Michael about Anthony not being a real man as Michael and the other uncles were. Wasn't it Gary Sinese (a native Chicagoan!!!! YEAH!!) who played Anthony in GFIII? And, wasn't Mary a little warped, (the character of Mary, not Sophia) too? She seemed to have Michael's ambition (especially toward Anthony) and sort of knew how and what buttons to push on Michael?
I don't know why there are so many people who criticize Sophia Coppolla's acting in GFIII. Let's face it, there wasn't much to work with in that dreary and implausible story line she had to work with! As bad as everyone (or at least most of us) agree that GFIII was disconnected and detractible it was to GFI and II, how can anyone criticize the acting in GFIII? Even George Hamilton had to be given at least some leverage of rope with which to hang himself, no?? BTW, who made the decisions about whom to hire fof the various parts in GFIII? My sense is that there were those "powers that be" pressuring Coppola and Puzo to continue the Godfather saga due to greed. Of course we know that both GFI and GFII films did exceptionally well EVENTUALLY. Perhaps the greedy ones figured the same would happen to a further sequel. If it was either Coppolla or Puzo alone, or just the two of them making the decision to make another sequel, then I really am surprised at both of them. I have a feeling, however, that they were both under such pressure to continue the saga with the hopes that a GFIII would have the same financial success or better. NOT! The very choice of actors was proof of the fact that any GFIII sequel was already on its way to mediocrity! Eli Wallach as a Don??? He's a great actor, but no way can he nor did he pull it off as an Italian let alone as an Italian Don! And to bring Talia Shire back as a sort of femi-psuedo-Donnette was almost laughable....no, I take that back, it WAS LAUGHABLE!!! Certainly she should be brought back, but does anyone really believe her character went through such DRASTIC and sweeping changes during her later years? And secondly, even if she did make those huge changes, does anyone here really believe that Michael would have allowed her the leverage she seemed to have in the movie? NO way! Even now in our "liberated" day and age, Italian men still see their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, etc., as their responsibility to take care of and protect. It's a real greaseball, macho thing in most Italian families, mafioso or not. In the movie "Goodfellas", which took place in the 70's and 80's (and even in the early 90's), we didn't see any of the women plotting the poisoning or demise of their husband's or brother's enemies!! So, my point is that the actresses in GFIII were given a most difficult task in trying to portray authentically and truthfully their characters.
~~ Lollie