I saw 'Mother of Tears' last Friday and left quite devastated. I went in excited but with low expectations knowing that the colorful visuals of the prior films (1977's Suspiria and 1980's Inferno) would not be replicated. Argento has been quoted that he wanted this one to have a realistic and brutal tone, unlike the dream-like surrealism of the previous two. The opening credits/score were actually pretty decent but sadly what followed wasn't.
Soon after a coffin with an urn inside is discovered near an Italian cemetery, Rome is threatened by the resurrection of the Mother of Tears and her evil little monkey. Meanwhile the viewer is assaulted by a movie that is so poorly written, acted, staged and as promised, without the trippy splendor of the director's heyday.
The first murder felt rushed and was not very shocking - the idea of it is vile (a woman having her teeth bashed out, stomach slit open and then being strangled by her intestines) but at the same time it feels filmed in a detached manner - no tension or atmosphere. Maybe it was the atrocious acting, the by-the-numbers pacing - but most of the time I felt like I was in one of those "haunted" houses around Halloween-time where the actors (and in this case the director) try too hard to shock and scare - and all one ends up with is indifference.
Then we are treated to a boring cat and mouse chase between Asia Argento's Sarah (probably the worst performance in a Dario Argento movie ever!) and the second coming of witches and these witches are not as elegant and well-spoken as Joan Bennett - no, these witches giggle and frolic around Rome like they escaped some bad 80's goth convention.
Early on, a woman throws her baby over the bridge and you see the arm pop off mid-way sans blood - what should be horrific is chuckle inducing. I know Argento was wanting to give this chapter a more realistic feel but is he kidding?!? This doesn't feel realistic at all. The fall of Rome just involves a few people fighting in the streets, those pesky 80's witches and a priest that conveniently notes there has been a rise in exorcisms as of late while Sarah hails cabs and conveniently runs through all the "chaos", going from one character to the next to learn more about her own special powers and the Mother of Tears and how all three films tie together - which is over-written and lazy. And we ultimately learn that Sarah's mum, Elise Mandy (first played by Daria Nicolodi in Inferno) was a powerful white witch and fought with Mater Suspirium from Suspiria. And when Elise comes back from the grave like Obi Wan, all Sarah can do is annoyingly scream, "Mommy! Mommy!". Oh, there is another dead baby in the second act also which is more realistic-looking but at this point it's so obvious that you are watching a movie and a bad one at that - that the image has no real shock or power.
Then after all the running around, we arrive to the conclusion where Sarah destroys the Mother of Tears by burning her gold glitter glue pink top deep within the catacombs of an old abandoned building and while trying to escape poor Sarah falls into a pit of goo, maggots, and skeletons ala 1985's Phenomena. There are a lot of winks like that to fans of his previous (and superior) films but I didn't go to 'Mother of Tears' for winks - I went hoping for the experience of a modern Italian horror masterpiece. What I got was a joke and a slap in the face to the previous films in the series.
And when Argento has fans as big as Tarantino - why the hell is he co-writing with the lame screenwriters that wrote Tobe Hooper's last two direct to DVD duds?? What the 'Mother of Tears' could have been. Such sweet sorrow.
Soon after a coffin with an urn inside is discovered near an Italian cemetery, Rome is threatened by the resurrection of the Mother of Tears and her evil little monkey. Meanwhile the viewer is assaulted by a movie that is so poorly written, acted, staged and as promised, without the trippy splendor of the director's heyday.
The first murder felt rushed and was not very shocking - the idea of it is vile (a woman having her teeth bashed out, stomach slit open and then being strangled by her intestines) but at the same time it feels filmed in a detached manner - no tension or atmosphere. Maybe it was the atrocious acting, the by-the-numbers pacing - but most of the time I felt like I was in one of those "haunted" houses around Halloween-time where the actors (and in this case the director) try too hard to shock and scare - and all one ends up with is indifference.
Then we are treated to a boring cat and mouse chase between Asia Argento's Sarah (probably the worst performance in a Dario Argento movie ever!) and the second coming of witches and these witches are not as elegant and well-spoken as Joan Bennett - no, these witches giggle and frolic around Rome like they escaped some bad 80's goth convention.
Early on, a woman throws her baby over the bridge and you see the arm pop off mid-way sans blood - what should be horrific is chuckle inducing. I know Argento was wanting to give this chapter a more realistic feel but is he kidding?!? This doesn't feel realistic at all. The fall of Rome just involves a few people fighting in the streets, those pesky 80's witches and a priest that conveniently notes there has been a rise in exorcisms as of late while Sarah hails cabs and conveniently runs through all the "chaos", going from one character to the next to learn more about her own special powers and the Mother of Tears and how all three films tie together - which is over-written and lazy. And we ultimately learn that Sarah's mum, Elise Mandy (first played by Daria Nicolodi in Inferno) was a powerful white witch and fought with Mater Suspirium from Suspiria. And when Elise comes back from the grave like Obi Wan, all Sarah can do is annoyingly scream, "Mommy! Mommy!". Oh, there is another dead baby in the second act also which is more realistic-looking but at this point it's so obvious that you are watching a movie and a bad one at that - that the image has no real shock or power.
Then after all the running around, we arrive to the conclusion where Sarah destroys the Mother of Tears by burning her gold glitter glue pink top deep within the catacombs of an old abandoned building and while trying to escape poor Sarah falls into a pit of goo, maggots, and skeletons ala 1985's Phenomena. There are a lot of winks like that to fans of his previous (and superior) films but I didn't go to 'Mother of Tears' for winks - I went hoping for the experience of a modern Italian horror masterpiece. What I got was a joke and a slap in the face to the previous films in the series.
And when Argento has fans as big as Tarantino - why the hell is he co-writing with the lame screenwriters that wrote Tobe Hooper's last two direct to DVD duds?? What the 'Mother of Tears' could have been. Such sweet sorrow.