Mother of Tears - La troisième mère

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.

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

MOT is a competent film, but not something that I think Argento should be proud of. As other reviewers have pointed out, the rich color palettes and clever cinematography of the early Argento are nearly absent from this film. There is more gore and it is more competently done, but it does not have the desired shock value, since it doesn't seem random and the viewer is not as disoriented as with Argento's earlier films.

The story is satisfactory and fits in with the other two "Mother" films fairly well. The script is mundane and the dialogue doesn't seem to have any passion.

The biggest problems are the casting and acting. Nearly all of the actors start chewing the scenery as soon as they are introduced. Udo Kier is perhaps the worst offender in this respect. Moran Atias, in her final scene, is simply awful...artificial and totally unbelievable.

Which brings us to Asia Argento. What can I say? Her acting can best be described as "often competent." But the lead in a film of this sort has to be more than that. I just never developed any belief in Asia as her character. No belief means no sympathy. No sympathy means no drama, as I'm not really concerned about her.

If you like Argento, or if you've seen the other two "Mother" movies, then you should probably see MOT. If you are looking for an introduction to Argento's work, this is not the place to start.

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.