La madre del mal

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...

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.

I know this is going to be hard for you to hear, but I have to get this off of my chest: I'm leaving you.

We had a good run for years, but now its time to move on. I'm not going to patronize you by using the tired "its not you - its me" cliché. In fact, it IS you. You've changed, and I'm not in love with your movies anymore.

In the early days, we had a blast. Your films were artistic, original, vibrant, gory and scary. They were lush with complex themes woven into horror films that broadened my mind...

In the Eighties, we had a rocky period. Your films became sloppy and convoluted. Yes, the honeymoon was over - but we still stuck it out. I had faith that we (you) could work through this and get back in the game.

Towards the end of the millennium, you did have your flashes of brilliance - glimpses of our blissful beginnings... Sadly, as I now see, those were merely the final stages of your decline. Your brief and violent death throes before truly going off the rails.

I am writing to you now after seeing "Mother of Tears." I had such high hopes for us again!! All the planets were aligned: Late night screening - full house - open mind - belly full of tequila and lime... and the NEW DARIO ARGENTO FILM!!! What could possibly go wrong! Then it starts... Gore right off the bat! Then witches!! THEN a very wicked little monkey!! This is going to be great!

Then... oh god, then.... I'm not sure when it started exactly, but at some point pretty early on the plot twisted off into nowhere - followed shortly thereafter by any pretense of acting. I mean - I love a b-flick, but this was just pathetic. Especially when you know everyone can do better. (Oh, Udo, my secret Lover... Why? WHY???)

What bothers me the most was that it seemed that you, Dario - the once great horror maestro- didn't care about this one. Where was the signature color palate? Why would you let the one of the brilliant Goblin boys write one great Argento-esquire piece, followed by half an hour of hackery?

I hate to say it, but after your last three flops - I'm done. Thanks for the great years, Dario, but you and I are through.

We'll always have the 70's, my Love. And I will remember them, and you, fondly. Good bye, Dario.

I'm sorry, Dario but this doesn't belong next to your other "Mother" films. It's really funny that some people dare compare it to his older films and especially to Suspiria.

On the good side, Dario proves that he is still inventive in his killing scenes. Actually, this may be his most gory film. Violence and gore are really over the top, sometimes to such a degree that it can be comic. But in the direction/atmosphere department things don't look that good. The film never manages to build the really tense atmosphere we've seen at other Argento films and old masterful camera moves are mostly absent. The special effects don't help much, either. Blood and gore is done pretty good, but the Spirits and other CGI moments (God, I hate CGI in horror films) are at least cringe-worthy.

Of course Dario's decline hasn't started now, I consider his last decent film to be Sleepless (2001) and before that, Opera (1987). It's just that the story and the acting don't help either. What's new ? you'd say. Admittedly, especially in the acting department Dario's films were never that good, but here most of the acting is really bad. Especially his daughter (which he so much likes to torture in his movies) delivers some of the worst acting I've seen. She was never that good an actress, but especially in this film she's very bad. The fact that she has lost that exotic youth she portrayed in his older films lessens even more her overall appearance.

I'll give it a 5/10 because there *are* some strong moments in the movie (albeit a few), but all and all I would only recommend this film to die-hard Argento fans, or people that badly want see some over-the-top gore. There can be no comparison whatsoever between this film and the previous "Mother" movies, or his other golden-era films. If you really want to get to know one of the best horror filmmakers ever, watch Suspiria, Tenebre, Phenomena, Inferno and Profondo Rosso.

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!)