The Mother of Tears

It took me several viewings of Argento's final film in his Three Mothers trilogy before I finally arrived at a sure, albeit ambivalent, conclusion.

The "plot", as they call it, involves an ancient urn which causes the city of Rome to erupt into violence. Robbery and murder run amok and it's all the result of Mater Lachrymarum (the Mother of Tears.) It's ultimately up to a young art student by the name of Sarah Mandy to stop the chaos.

Asia Argento plays the role of Sarah. I don't think Asia is without talent (I enjoyed her performances in Trauma and the Stendhal Syndrome – two earlier Argento efforts.) But while she shouldn't entirely be held at fault here, her performance isn't exactly great. She frequently comes across as wooden, although I believe much of this is a result of the poor dialogue. And perhaps more importantly, her wooden delivery and still fairly thick Italian accent give the proceedings quite a bit of charm. I wouldn't say her performance enhances the film, but I suppose her looks are enough to keep the film going. Adam James' character is boring and not at all engaging; this is true even when we're given the chance to poke fun at him. He does nothing for me, and, at best, is forgettable. And then there's Udo Kier. Doing what he does best, he's over the top enough to be memorable, but he somehow never crosses into "too ridiculous" territory. His screen time is short but worthwhile.

One of Mother of Tear's saving graces is its gore. Gone is Germano Natali's (Deep Red, Suspiria) garish, paint-like blood (excellent in its own right); instead, Argento opts for a more Fulci-esque display of bloody mayhem. The camera lingers on every moment of gory detail. Argento has rarely been this brutal; there are plenty of memorable moments for gore hounds and the film's first big sequence is a perfect example.

Mother of Tears' soundtrack frequently pays homage to Argento's past supernatural related works. The music during the aforementioned first murder sequence is a clear nod to Suspiria's over-the-top, yet haunting operatic music. And later scenes do more than enough to hint at Inferno's piano-based instrumentals. Overall, the film does a good job score-wise.

From a visual standpoint, Mother of Tears is hardly lacking. It may not have the Technicolor look of Suspiria or the nuanced production design of Inferno, but it's hardly dull. It takes some of the artsy indoor/outdoor scenes of The Stendhal Syndrome and combines it with the more elaborate set-pieces found in previous "mother" films.

Overall, Mother of Tears is a mixed bag. It has its boring moments, but it's also a good example of Italian Horror's love for grandeur and charming carelessness toward what is considered logical or politically correct. Those comparing it to films of Argento's golden era need to stop living in the past. Mother of Tears has its great moments and not so great moments and it is neither a failure nor a rousing success. If you're a fan of 80s "godfather of gore" era Fulci and take into account the 21st century's distinct lack of anything Giallo/Italian Horror-related, Mother of Tears is worth a watch.

OK, Mother of Tears is not Suspiria. A lot of people is disappointed because this movie is not as good as Suspiria...bad news for you: Suspiria is a masterpiece and is very tough to found movies as great as that. The good news is that Mother of Tears is a very good horror movie. The third part of the trilogy is IMHO better than Tenebrae and is one of the best Argento movies in a long, long time. Good scares, a lot of gore (this must be the goriest Argento movie) and very entertaining overall. There are a lot of bloody and great scenes, amputations, decapitations, impaling. If you like ultra gore you will like this, If you like Argento you will like it (if you don't expect a new Suspiria) and if you are just a horror fan, I'm sure you will like this too.

As the opening credits rolled by in the midst of medieval drawings, I couldn't help but wonder to myself. Is this it? Could this be it? Is this the long awaited return of the undisputed king of horror to his rightful throne? All the marks were on the wall. Asia Argento returns to the fold, and so does Claudio Simonetti (the mastermind behind Goblin and their beautiful scores for Profondo Rosso, Tenebre and Suspiria among others), Daria Nicolodi (Profondo Rosso, Inferno, Tenebre, Opera and writer of Suspiria), Coralina Cataldi Tassoni (Opera), Udo Kier (Suspiria), Sergio Stivaletti (Argento's regular SFX man since Opera) and his brother Claudio Argento producing. As if this first class ensemble from the Argento universe wasn't enough, the first tracking shot through a graveyard and above a door screams Argento and I can't help but wonder. Is this really it? As the rest of the movie unfolds, the first thing that becomes quickly obvious is that La Terza Madre is definitely not a throwback to his colourful 70's days. This is neither Suspiria nor Inferno and perhaps Argento wisely decided to distance stylistically the closing chapter of his Three Mothers trilogy instead of emulating his vintage style (and risking failure?). The movie is decidedly darker, with a DV kind of look that brings to mind his last couple of works and subtle yet effective lighting that reminded me of Mario Bava circa Black Sabbath. Not a bad thing, aye? A medieval urn that is discovered in the cemetery of Viterbo heralds the coming of the Third Mother, the powerful witch Mater Lachrimarum. As Rome is plunged into utter chaos with people committing random acts of violence in the streets, Sarah Mandy (Asia Argento) is called to battle this ancient evil.

Story-wise La Terza Madre is typically Argento-ish. Occasionally nonsensical, with a relatively weak climax that doesn't mesh well with the build-up that leads up to it and very sketchy character development and motivation. But if you're a member of the Rosso Brigades and a sworn Argento hooligan you won't let that stop you. You never did, right? This is Argento and you don't expect profound drama from his idiosynchratic blood operas. That's not why you come back for more every time. You know his stories are mere skeletons for him to hang on his stunning imagery and violence. It's the style, the set pieces, the masterful way that visuals mesh with the score, the intricate build ups that lead to beautifully staged gore. You come to his movies for that pure cinema that no one else can deliver. You always did, right?

So will you find it here? I can safely say that yes... yes you will goddammit! Of course it is not Profondo Rosso and neither Suspiria or Tenebre, but for those who have followed his career closely the past 10 years that's hardly a big surprise. This is Argento2k. Visually darker but soaked in blood and entrails and atmospheric as all get out. There's an apocalyptic air about it and combined with Simonetti's decidedly more dark-wave score (it has evolved from the 70's in similar ways as Argento has visually), it manages to be chilling enough for most of the duration. Also this may very well be his most violent and gory film to date. There are several long drawn out death scenes, gruesome and stylish that will please every blood hound out there. And the atmosphere is as dark and nightmarish as one would expect from the subject matter. Closer to Sleepless than Suspiria overall, but definitely rewarding and head and shoulders above most Hollywood horrors this decade.

Now for the bad. I didn't like the CGI. It's not that it's badly done. Far from it actually. Compared to the horrible CGI of movies with 10 times its budget like I Am Legend and The Mist, La Terza Madre is OK. I just happen to think that CGI generally cheapens a movie. So there are moments that one may find a bit silly or cheesy (such as a spectral Daria Nicolodi hovering in the air), but not as bad as other efforts. Also the climax is a bit unrewarding. After a series of gruesome gore scenes the ending is a bit too hastily put together. And the Mother of Tears is just not menacing or chilling enough. Another actress (decidedly older) should have played the part in this reviewer's opinion. Also the dialogue and character decisions may appear a bit childish or nonsensical, but again that's something I can live with in an Argento movie.

As the ending credits rolled by I asked myself again. Is this it? Well... probably not. At least it is not a 70's throwback nor is it as monumental as Suspiria. It's the closure of old affairs with new style and attitude. Think how Sleepless upgraded his giallo style for the new millennium. La Terza Madre does the same for his supernatural horror. Personally speaking, I'm just glad he's still able to make a damn good horror movie. His 70's gems will always be there so the man gets carte blanche from me to take his style wherever he wants. As long as the results are this good I have no reason to complain. He's probably the last of the masters of horror from his generation that still has it in him. As far as I'm concerned, even mediocre Argento is better than 90% of today's horror. And this is very good Argento...

There is much to like here and I found myself more impressed with the film on 2nd viewing. I particularly liked the monkeys. But what kills the film for me is the lack of gravitas around the Mother figure here. she is too soft porn and thus difficult to take seriously. Her henchmen are fine, but she lacks genuine magic, and i. a film that takes magic as its subject, this pulls it down. In an Argento movie, we Can swallow the odd bit of scenery chewing (Udo) and even lack luster CGI and a lessening of the visual poetry of suspiria.... but only if that underlying sense of magic works. It half does work until the Mater turns up looking like a playboy centefold in a cape

When I stop and think about how far Dario Argento has fallen, it's enough to make me cry, but this final movie in his Three Mothers trilogy is so monumentally bad that, occasionally, the tears were of laughter.

Problem number one is the script, which borders on the farcical at times: new-wave witches (think Bette Midler in Hocus Pocus crossed with mid-'80s Madonna), a malevolent monkey, a friendly ghost, a taxi driver willing to pick up fares while the city is in chaos - even for Argento, this one pushes credibility a bit too far.

Problem number two is the acting - utterly dreadful performances all round, with Dario's daughter Asia the biggest offender (watching her character trying to will herself invisible is hilarious).

Problem number three... the visual effects: Stivaletti's practical effects are great (and make this one of Argento's goriest films), but the digital trickery is cheap and wholly unconvincing. How those awful ghost effects got the go ahead, I'll never understand.

Problem number four: the direction. Dario Argento has a crack at creating some memorable moments, but he's unable to work the magic this time around: the most notable shot is one long take, the camera following Asia as she wanders around a derelict building. It's technically impressive but ultimately pointless.

Problem number five is the ending: it sucks. After all that we have seen, the Mother of Tears (a naked silicon-chested bimbo) and her acolytes are destroyed in a flash, leaving Asia and the bloke she is with unable to contain their mirth. The joke is most definitely on us.

A generous 4/10 for the graphic violence, which includes a woman chucking her baby off a bridge, a person being strangled with their own intestines, a witch having her head crushed in a door, Udo Kier getting his face smushed, a neat eye-gouging, some throat slashing, and a woman impaled by a spear (which goes up her hoo-ha and comes out of her mouth!)