It seems that Argento's latest have got mixed reviews; some enjoy it for the gore and sleaze, others see it as downright silly and a disappointemt, lacking the stylish set-pieces of his classic works, also Simonetti's score has been written off as boring.

Any opinions??

I've read those mixed reviews and am still looking forward to watching it. I know Vincent and some others here have seen it, but I think many still haven't. When's it coming out?

It's fun but no classic. There are some great set-pieces but over-all it is not up to the level of his earlier works, especially the finale. Part of the problem is that the Third Mother is not scary enough. Instead of shaking with terror, or screaming with delight, I was thinking "Hey, the Third Mother has implants." Still, I had a good time, and it is definitely worth seeing.

"Downright silly" is a good way to describe this lackluster mess (***VERY MINOR SPOILERS WITHIN***). It starts off well and has a few good sequences (one section beginning with Asia riding in a taxicab around Rome and climaxing with her exploring the Mother of Tears' lair in a sustained 4-minute steadicam take in particular harkens back to the classic feel of SUSPIRIA and INFERNO), but the film is so chock full of horribly written exposition, a downright lazy lack of continuity (if Rome is so in the grip of chaos and violence that it's being referred to as "the second fall of Rome", why does everybody seem to be going about their daily lives with little or no disruption?), horribly staged background action (again, those "Rome in chaos" scenes), some of the cheapest costumes ever seen on film (i.e., the witches bad Goth reject outfits, but even more damning the "ancient tunic" worn by the Mother of Tears that looks like a red sweater with the sleeves torn off and sprinkled with some glitter over a glue pattern) and the scenes with the witches in the catacombs and the climax- Oh dear Lord!!! I swear they're like something out of the "ritual" sequences in HOWLING II only with some of the worst CGI ever seen thrown in for good measure (the final shot of this movie must be seen to be believed), and when the most anticipated Dario Argento film ever channels HOWLING II for far more of its running time than it channels either SUSPIRIA or INFERNO, then it's not a good film. I would say it's sort of entertaining in a campy, trashy train wreck way, but in no way, shape, or form is it a good film.

Vincent

I keep meaning to ask this:

Since you've seen it yourself, do you think that if the Weinsteins were to set to trimming and retooling this in their usual inimitable way, they could actually improve the climax by throwing more money into the effects and even commissioning a small reshoot?

Or would the film as-is not lend itself to such augmentation?

If they re-wrote and reshot the ending, it could only be a good thing. However, since the film has already been released in Italy, I doubt this would happen with Argento at the helm at least.

Vincent

Wow, could you imagine if they went and brought in Joe Chappelle or something!? :lol:

I doubt it could be any worse than the ending Dario directed.*

Vincent

* Or about 70% of the film Dario directed, for that matter.

That very well might be, but I was just giggling at how insultingly absurd it would be if this eagerly awaited trilogy-capper ended up in the hands of an anonymous for-hire shooter. It would actually be a new low for the stateside treatment of Argento, more extreme than the guttings his films got here back in the eighties.

Not that any of this will materialize, just me riffing on the extreme possibilities.

Saw this tonight at USC. And well, I was very unimpressed. I would liken it to a carnival spook house ride. The outside may have some cool stuff painted on it to get you in there, but once you're in there and can look at how shitty the props and mechanisms are inside of it, you're disappointed.
OK, clumsy analogy, but it's 2am, and I'm starving.
Just wanted to get some words out there.
And Vincent, I agree with everything you've said in your review.
If by some chance, I'm really tired and already posted the same thing about the movie, just let it go, please.

:)

Jeff,
you've hit the nail on the head and don't even know it. This film feels like anyone could have directed it. It's very lazy and phoned in to me. There is no atmosphere, style, intellect, that we've come to expect from Argento. It seems to have been made for teenage boys who want to jerk off looking at lesbians, and watch some gore.
Maybe since I'm gay, I'm not turned on by the tits, but I'm not turned on by the gore either. It was just so gratuitous and reminded me of a child playing with its own shit just because mommy says it's bad. So Junior thinks it's fun to upset mommy? Well guess what Junior, mommy isn't entertained!

Hi Derek,

thanks for the USC report. I tried to make it but got tied up with something. How well attended was it and was it film or video projected? I'm surprised the screenwriters did a Q & A afterwards as no one seems to like the film at all and I'd expect the questions to get downright rude if the audience reacts with as much disappointment as it seems to... What was the Q & A like?

The theater was about 3/4 full. And the audience laughed A LOT. Now, some of it supposed to be funny obviously. But I don't know if the film is supposed to be parody, or serious. The tone of it is strange.
So, the Q and A went OK. The audience didn't have much to ask, you could tell it was a little awkward. So basically Adam Gierasch, just told stories, and Jace interjected here and there. They are both very nice people, and I've gotten to know Jace a little over the year. I was almost embarrassed for them up there. The audience reaction to the movie didn't seem very good. Not many people stayed for the Q and A.
This film is very devisive for Argento's audience. It seems this was made for a teenage American audience, what is assumed they want to see. But it doesn't seem to stick together very well, and at the end, I've said it before but I'll say it again, I was thinking "OK, so what?"

So I guess we should watch the trilogy in reverse, so everything ends on a high note.

So, now that you've seen 'em all (for those who have), which is the better finale for the trilogy? Argento's La Terza Madre or Luigi Cozzi's Il Gatto Nero?

Wow, is it sad that could even be a reasonable question. Betcha that'd even make Cozzi wince...

I haven't seen Cozzi's film, although I do know it was based on Daria Nicolodi's proposed script for the third film in the trilogy. How much of her actual script remains in the final film, though, is another question...

As much of an overall mess that MOTHER OF TEARS: THE THIRD MOTHER*is, I can't imagine it being worse than a Luigi Cozzi film. I mean, I did like some elements of it after all.

Vincent

* The actual title as it appears on the English-language print.

Great question John.

I haven't seen the new Argento (as indicated in my earlier post) but I'm not expecting much from it now. I'd almost forgotten Cozzi's film. It was never released here on video so it was always quite elusive but I did bag a copy a long time ago. When I finally managed to secure an English TV dupe, I'm sure my first positive opinion was coloured by it's rarity however I have to dig it out now to see how it stands up. I remember it to be a fun "Poe-faced" [ahem] affair with a lot of Suspiria-like style.

Victor

I hope the release of Argento's film might convince some DVD company to put out Cozzi's to capitalize on the fanfare of the first... they'd make a great double-bill one of these nights.

Luigi Cozzi's The Black Cat - where did the VHS I have come from? Perhaps Japan or Australia, maybe Holland - I'll now have to dig it out and have a look. I love it when the Suspiria theme starts up as they reminisce about 'that film that was already made about the Three Mothers'! Why was it so bad? It seemed deliberate. The acting was atrocious, the lighting had to use blue and red (or was it red and green) etc.

My tape of it is Australian. The film was shot by Pasquale Rachini who shot Avati's HOUSE WITH THE WINDOWS THAT LAUGH. Its been a while since I've seen it but I don't remember the Suspiria musical quote though I do remember that the filmmakers get corrected when they cite the legend of three mothers as being by Poe or someone else. What I remember of the music is White Lion and some other bad heavy metal.

There are supposed to be at least two different versions of this but I have no idea what the difference is.

Tonight I watched that Thanksgiving staple, THE WIZARD OF OZ, on DVD, and damn if it didn't make me rethink my opinion of MOTHER OF TEARS...

************SPOILERS FOLLOW******************

As we all know, Dario patterned SUSPIRIA after Disney's SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS, and he patterned INFERNO after HANSEL AND GRETEL. Until now, I haven't been able to find a similar 'classic children's story' that paralleled MOTHER OF TEARS, but tonight I think I have.

Like Dorothy being guided by the white witch in WIZARD OF OZ, Sarah Mandy in MOT is guided by the spirit of her mother, who we are told was a great "white witch". The Mother of Tears herself finds her powers entwined with a scarlet tunic, much like the wicked witch of the west (Rome?) in WIZARD OF OZ is obsessed with Dorothy's ruby red shoes which belonged to her sister, the wicked witch of the east (New York?). The wicked witch of the west also has flying monkeys as her henchmen- the Mother of Tears has a monkey as her sidekick, as well... Sarah is led on a journey through a world she doesn't understand in MOT until she reaches the conclusion and her salvation, much like Dorothy must navigate her way through the land of Oz in order to find her way home...

For a more graphic visual reference, look at the image of Philippe Leroy's head as seen through the giant green magnifying glass, which looks almost exactly like the image of the Wizard of Oz himself's floating giant green head...

These are quick observations that came to mind on the spot while watching THE WIZARD OF OZ tonight, but given Dario's admitted indebtedness to SNOW WHITE and HANSEL AND GRETEL for the earlier films, I don't think it's at all out of line to make these connections. Do any of the other folks here who've seen MOTHER OF TEARS have anything to add? I imagine if I watch both films a few more times in close proximity I'll find more connections, but I'd love to see if any of you other MOT viewers can make some connections that I haven't yet yourselves.

Vincent

Just got to see this last night and as indicated in an earlier post, I was not expecting greatness. Nevertheless, it was a fun enough ride undermined by some ridiculous plot holes. Still nothing could be as clumsy and insulting to the audience as the ending of SLEEPLES. The problem is the movie isn't worthy to share the same shelf space as SUSPIRIA or INFERNO (even though they aren't exactly paradigms of logic and narrative cohesion) and there's no excuse for it other than a lack of ambition or an ill-conceived marketing to a new audience (MOH-kids?). He had the money. He had the locations. He had the support of Asia and Daria. Why doesn't it gel as a serious expansion of the universe set up by the earlier films? Could it be our own jaded eyes or high expectations? I don't think so. I'd say carelessness and commercialism are to blame. There are interesting things going on but no heart to it. How does a dumb scene like the earlier mentioned telephone call get in front of the cameras? How can an effects crew stage a scene in front of an entire crew and have noone point out that the instrument of impalement needs to move when the unfortunate victim moves? I don't mind the last shot though. The "rebirth" through the crack in the ground reminds me of such films as HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY and CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD and the laughing recalls the end of SUSPIRIA and Jessica Harper's enigmatic smile.

Victor.

Awwww... Where's the Argento love? :)

I saw TERZA MADRE too and really liked it. In fact, it's possible I really, REALLY, liked it. I'll have to watch it again to be sure. I will say that it's the first Argento film since STENDAHL SYNDROME that I've had any interest in rewatching.

I will admit to being a diehard Argento apologist. I gobble up everything he touches the moment I'm able to and spend an awful lot of time defending his lesser works to people. Lately, though, Argento's films just weren't providing the good old fashioned Italian horror buzz I used to get when I was just discovering this stuff. I watched his MASTERS OF HORROR episodes with some interest and appreciated some of the shocks they contained, but they didn't leave me wanting more. DO YOU LIKE HITCHCOCK, CARD PLAYER, NONHOSONNO - I enjoyed them all as I was watching them, but either they were too silly and eccentric (NONHOSONNO) or not eccentric enough (CARD PLAYER) for me to truly appreciate.

TERZA MADRE did it for me. Can't tell you why. If any THIRD MOTHER-HATERS want to debate me...well, you all win. You're absolutely right. The villains aren't frightening. The tunic is silly. The visuals aren't as rich as those in the first two chapters. The violence is more grotesque than beautiful. But dammit if I didn't come away from the film feeling like I had seen a significant Italian gothic for the first time in a decade. The only time the film really turned me off was the...um...skewering scene (really, Dario, stop sexually punishing lesbians. This is the 21st century.)

But the rest of it, I was totally there. I even loved the absolutely not-at-all scary collegiate witches walking through the airport in broad daylight cackling at everyone in sight. I love Asia Argento when she does that "possessed - rolling her eyes - swoon" that she seems to do in every movie, and she does it A LOT in this one. I love that the screenwriters actually took the FOUR FLIES goof of images being imprinted on someone's eye and actually made it work. I love that Villa Graps and the bone/sludge pit from PHENOMENAE made guest appearances. I loved the non-sensical babble about magic and Suzy Bannion and Varellie. And by the time Asia was laughing hysterically at the end as an homage to SUSPIRIA, I was in Italo-goth heaven.

Now, just to give you some idea as to where my Argento affections lie - I actually enjoyed PHANTOM. Didn't love it, but liked it for it's weirdness. PHANTOM is far sillier than TERZA MADRE. I half-like TRAUMA and PHENOMENAE. I used to love TENEBRAE, but I've seen it too many times at this point. On the Argento-producing side, I dislike his cut of DAWN OF THE DEAD, prefer THE CHURCH over THE SECT and adore WAX MASK.

There you go.

So let's give the film a chance. It's goofy, sinister, riddled with odd character behavior and has enough gore to choke a horse. I dug it.

D.

I haven't seen MOT yet, but I find it interesting that while most folks here don't like it much, it's scoring 100% on the tomato-meter. And these critics don't just like it OK, they like it a LOT, particularly Stephanie Zacharek ("The Mother of Tears is wild and untamed, a celebratory feat of gonzo artistry"). Granted, it's only six reviews so far, but I wonder what accounts for the difference of opinion.

Because I think too many people look for reasons NOT to like something rather than reasons to like it.

I've found myself doing this from time to time. Picking apart a movie on the slightest of flaws rather than looking at the work as a whole.

I read that the Italian DVD of TERZA MADRE comes out this week. Anyone know if the English audio is included?

D.

I don't see it available for pre-order at any of the Italian DVD stores I usually visit, so I'd be surprised if it came out this week... unless for rental only?

How about any DVD/HD release scheduled? Is it going to go theatrical anywhere else first (U.K., Australia or Japan would be convenient!)?

The DVD is apparently out, as LA TERZA MADRE is available for download at one's favourite pirate site of choice. It's in Italian with English subs.

Confession: Alright, I was a bad boy and I downloaded this because I live a bit aways from the majour cities and I've become very impatient with age. Only saw some, as I'm REALLY hoping for the fabled theatrical release that I suspect may never come. I'm still wondering if I should wait or just watch it this week.

Are you sure? There's no sign of this DVD at either dvd.it or kultvideo.com, not even as a "coming soon" listing - which is very odd.

Weren't Optimum or Metrodome supposedly releasing it on DVD in the UK around March this year? No sign of that one either yet...

That's a leak, possibly from an upcoming DVD master, but nothing's yet been officially released to be pirated from.

Well, STYP has released a list of the theaters so far that will be playing LA TERZE MADRE. Has anyone heard of any other venues? I'm still holding out hope for these parts, but with a very busy Summer season approaching, I'm not sure if the chances are all that good.


Here's the list I got:

Sunshine Theater, New York, Landmark - 6.6.08
Nuart Theater, Los Angeles, Landmark - 6.6.08
University Theater, Irvine, Regal - 6.6.08
Ritz Theater, Philadelphia, Landmark - 6.6.08
Kendall Square Theater, Cambridge, MA, Landmark - 6.6.08
E Street Theater, Washington DC, Landmark - 6.6.08
Lumiere Theater, San Francisco, Landmark - 6.20.08
Shattuck Theater, Berkeley, Landmark - 6.20.08
Lagoon Theater, Minneapolis, Landmark - 6.20.08
Starz Theater, Denver, Landmark - 6.27.08
Ken Theater, San Diego, Landmark - 6.27.08
Dobie Theater, Austin, Landmark - 6.27.08
Varsity Theater, Seattle, Landmark - 7.4.08
Music Box Theater, Chicago, Brian Androtti - 7.4.08
Tivoli Theater, St. Louis, Landmark - 7.11.08
Midtown Theater, Atlanta, Landmark - 7.11.08

Saw this today, finally, via the Russian DVD. Liked it. I pretty much stopped caring about Argento's ouput after OPERA, and haven't seen many of his later offerings. While it'll never be 1975 again (the modernness being the film's chief turnoff for me) it had much of that same gonzo weirdness that got me into Eurocult and Argento in the first place.

Months of breathless anticipation were answered last night when Optimum’s new region 2 DVD of MOTHER OF TEARS:THE THIRD MOTHER arrived on my doorstep…months of blameless virtue, unsullied by the vulgar temptations of bit torrents, bootlegs and spoiler-riddled advance reviews…

…And THIS was my reward?

Nothing can quite prepare you for this shoddy, carelessly-directed, utterly inauthentic mess. What on earth has become of the Argento of old, who once revelled in elegant buildup to his baroque horrors, dreamlike camera glides into strange houses, disconcerting macro close-ups of small but suddenly disturbing details of the natural world around us, the Argento who could rediscover the magical in the everyday? Well, why bother with all that time-consuming nonsense when you can cut straight to a guy’s face being chopped to pieces with a meat cleaver? As he enters the autumn of his years, Argento seems more and more impatient, cutting valuable narrative corners in a headlong dash to get to “the good stuff” – only these days, the good stuff is no longer so good. THE CARD PLAYER suffered to a lesser degree from the same problem – Argento simply cannot be bothered to take the time to introduce his characters or the situation, choosing instead to jump straight in with both feet and leaving the viewer with no choice other than disbelieving laughter at the crude bluntness of his storytelling technique.

This isn’t the same, tired old complaint about narrative absurdity – all of Argento’s films, up to and including THE STENDHAL SYNDROME (by common consent his last solid thriller), have shared an eccentric but always focused sense of authorial control, imparting a powerful sense of ideas boiling away just beneath the surface, apparent randomness in fact firmly connected by a unifying central vision. So what if these ideas were fully comprehensible only to Argento? The viewer senses their existence, and the imagination responds accordingly. But with MOTHER OF TEARS, the overriding impression is of an empty vessel, half-heartedly decorated with images lazily recollected* from former glories. It’s a film with no clear sense of its own identity, as though the director had found himself recast in the role of Sam Dalmas and was desperately trying to remember what the point of the entire enterprise was, hoping against hope that the crucible’s malodorous contents will eventually yield philosophical gold...

Sadly, all we get is hollow disappointment. Long gone is the through-the-looking glass poetry of INFERNO’s drowned basement, or faceless Night itself springing to life to devise a cruelly beautiful demise for SUSPIRIA’s over-inquisitive ballerina. In place of these transcendant moments of cinema we are presented with the jaw-dropping spectacle of Obi-Wan Nicolodi, bathed in a cheap blue glow, seemingly channelling Mr Burns in the Simpsons X-FILES parody (“I bring you love!”), or bald, ill-tempered Eastern European S&M hitmen with unintentionally-cutesy simian sidekicks, or a tribe of slatternly Fellini-reject “witches” (we never see them actually perform any acts of magic, so far as I recall) committing some very minor violations of social etiquette in public places, or a naked silicone-breasted Mater Lachrymarum ranting at her followers in a tatty T-shirt not quite long enough to cover her arse. And another obnoxious-brat-desperately-in-need-of-her-next-fix performance from Asia Argento, as the icing on the cake; really, what more could one want?

Like PHANTOM, an unspeakable misbegotten disaster still horribly fresh in my memory, MOTHER OF TEARS’ entire existence appears to have been predicated on a total misconception of what his audience actually wants from an Argento film, as though Dario were simply mechanically ticking off generic horror movie ingredients from a list compiled by some anonymous focus group. Dialogue scenes are handled with a total lack of finesse, always filmed in unwavering medium shot, allowing the unforgivably clunky dialogue to drop dead right in front of your eyes. The casting director seems to have signed anyone who actually turned up to the audition. And Claudio Simonetti needs both his tin ears boxing, one for the rote Orff/Goldsmith Gregorian chanting-by-numbers score and the other for his frankly embarrassing end title song, the evil lovechild of Cradle of Filth and Daemonia. But once one’s expectations have slithered, stupefied, into one’s socks, there is some entertainment to be had from the artless exuberance of Argento’s relentless accumulation of absurdities. The investigating cop’s thinly-veiled contempt for humanity, the barmy alchemist’s gigantic green magnifying-glass, the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink museum murder scene with three grotesque demonic idols brought horribly to life, the gloriously silly eye-popping demise of the Japanese witch/bitch (bringing to public attention, not before time, the danger of public convenience doors) and the generous dollops of nudity and Fulci-standard intestinal mayhem. Dialogue must be heard to be believed, and the final shot, as promised, is an absolute howler.

If a US release is still on the cards, it’s not too late for a retitling. THE UNBEARABLE DAFTNESS OF WITCHING?

Proof that you can indeed polish a turd, Optimum’s DVD is excellent, a nice, clean 2.35:1 anamorphic presentation with 5.1 surround sound. And the main menu screen will delight your inner 14-year-old boy. (The only extra is a trailer.) Masochist that I am, a second viewing may be on the cards later this week. The things we do for love.

* And occasionally misremembered: when did Mater Tenebrarum become the Mother of Pain, for instance?

Scooter McCrae's review at Fangoria.com is very interesting. While I clearly disliked MOTHER OF TEARS initially, I found myself being drawn back to it repeatedly, and have come to like the film- like it a lot, even (and have found some very resonant connections within it, i.e. THE WIZARD OF OZ). Heck, it didn't even take me ten years- only a couple months, really! :)

Vincent

I'm amazed to see myself typing this, but I'm going to have to agree - MOTHER OF TEARS has begun to exert some pernicious attraction over me...

I watched it again last week, a few days after my first incredulous viewing...and found myself enjoying the experience much more, possibly because I had no more expectations left to shatter. I mean, I still stand by everything I originally said about the film - it really is laughable nonsense for the most part, but the Argento virus has already begun to chew away at the tender parts of my brain...and the whole ludicrous mish-mash has taken on a subtly different hue. (Did I really just employ the word "subtle" in connection with MOTHER OF TEARS? No, must have been somebody else. Must have been.)

Maybe my choice of companion-pieces helped contextualize MOTHER OF TEARS' rampant weirdness: to begin the triple-bill I re-watched DO YOU LIKE HITCHCOCK?, still virtually unwatchable thanks to its insultingly poor English dub track, concluding with JASON X (it just happened to be on TV) - another WTF sequel which decides to ramp up the kitsch quotient and play the whole thing as a Zucker Brothers parody of the original FRIDAY THE 13TH, with extreme gore. Sandwiched between these two, MOTHER OF TEARS suddenly started to make an insane sort of sense.

Maybe, just maybe, MOTHER OF TEARS wasn't as awful as I first thought... :blink:

I haven't seen the film yet and was flip-flopping about if I'd go see it or not when it finally opens on June 6th. But now that both Vincent and Steve have had somewhat of a change-of-heart (at least to the point where the film stays with you), I now know I'll definitely check it out on its brief theatrical. It may not be great, but it sure sounds like an experience - and I'll take that.

So the skanky witches (including the one that looked like James Hong in BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA in drag) are the flying monkees?

You know, you often hear of a particular film being a "love it or hate it" affair, and that usually turns out to be an exaggeration. But damn if MOT doesn't seem to be the real deal. Check out the reviews online. Talk about polarized. I take it as a good sign. Films that get that kind of reaction usually turn out to be among my favorites. Can't wait to find out.