Mother of Tears - La troisième mère

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.

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.

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

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...