Mother of Tears - La troisième mère

I saw this a few weeks ago and am still "processing" it, which I think is a good sign as there are some images and tonal aspects of the film that linger longer than its time on screen. That said, my initial reaction was a bit mixed. I hadn't seen any of Argento films after 'Two Evil Eyes' in 1990 and the overall look and loss of artistry was a bit jarring. It has a "made-for-TV" feel throughout and some rough CGI that really drags it down. The stylised "otherworldliness" of Suspiria, Inferno and many other Argentos (including some of the earlier giallos) is sorely lacking, with some quite everyday locations and characters (some of the witchy characters are basically goth teenagers that hang out at the shopping centre). Mother Lachrymarum herself also lacks serious gravitas: yes, she's be touted as the youngest and most beautiful of the three mothers, but her overall look and presentation seems more appropriate to soft porn. This, along with some very vicious violence that lacks the stylised aesthetic of his older work, contributes to an overriding tackiness in the film. Whilst some of Argento's 80s films may have sometimes seemed lurid, they were never tacky.

And yet, the extremity of the violence is what in some ways lets you know that this is an Argento, and it turns out to be one of the most hectic and crazed films I've seen of his. What it lacks in charm it makes up for in feverish brutality. You may call it undisciplined, but the accumulation of outlandishness in this film starts to have an effect and as it becomes more and more madcap, it also becomes more entertaining. The culmination is one of the most OTT and blood-soaked (until Luca Guadagnino's Suspiria came along, which possibly takes some inspiration from Mother of Tears). Along the way a fairly compelling mystery is spun with some cardboard characters, but the ending delivers a pretty satisfying pay-off. I'm glad Argento concluded the Three Mothers trilogy; whilst it might not have been the film we expected - or wanted - it still delivers, and rounds out the mythology without sullying the legacy of Suspiria and Inferno.

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.

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.

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.