Colt 38 Special Squad

Last night I watched:

Colt 38 Special Squad (1976).

This Italian poliziotteschi crime thriller is directed by Massimo Dallamano, whose movie What Have You Done To Solange (1972) I wrote about a few weeks ago. He was also the cinematographer on A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and For a Few Dollars More (1965) amongst others. This explains a bit about Colt 38 Special Squad because the cinematography in this movie is excellent.

The story in a nutshell is this; Marsigliese (Ivan Rassimov) is a criminal mastermind who has a plan to hold the city of Turin hostage for a lot of money. In his way stands his arch enemy Inspector Vanni (Marcel Bozzuffi) and his bike riding, revolver toting special squad. That's what you need to know about the plot.

Not only is Colt 38 Special Squad beautifully filmed, it is well directed and wonderfully suspenseful. The chases are excellent and easy to follow, nor do they last too long. A good chase has to be just long enough to be meaningful but not so long as to become tedious.

The actors are competent but nothing really stands out. I do like the villain Marsigliese, he is completely ruthless and very cunning. In a movie like this everything stands on the quality of the villain. If he's weak, the hero can't shine and the whole plot falls apart. Not so here, Marsigliese is believable and terrifying. Some poliziotteschi villains are pretty cartoonish but this is first rate villainy. Opposite him is Vanni and they really hate each other. What I do like is that neither criminal nor cop lose their professionalism just to get the other. Good solid writing.

Overall the story is good, with a couple of minor plot-holes that basically don't even matter. Though a special mention must be made for the stunts. There are a couple of very good car stunts that are worth mentioning even on an international level. Driving a car down the length of a moving train is awesome! Sure the train cars are for car transports and the surface was covered to allow a smooth ride but still... That was something else!

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely! Colt 38 Special Squad is quality from beginning to end, whether you like 70's Italian cinema or not. I want to say more but that would be spoilers. I will say the movie surprised me more than once in the best ways possible. Do yourself a favor and watch this wonderful crime action drama.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Armstrong and Miller

Today I want to highlight the British comedy duo; Armstrong and Miller.

They have a lot of sketches, so I chose the WWII British pilots who speak and act like petulant modern teenagers, as well as the kid's show hosts apologizing. Then further below, I'll link a longer list of their work.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week! 

 EDIT: When I posted this entry, all the videos broke, so I'll have to link them instead. 

WWII Pilots: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcwyI-NlvI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1S4eoIBOfU 

Apology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mVvRluNJpM 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIqkP8GDLNU 

 

 Longer list: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2fLw7fLMrE&list=PLQTAXw5ECeFJxMoha6GjO6mcGkw3Mh_Ie 

Masters of Rome

It's been a long journey but I have finally finished

Masters of Rome by Australian author Colleen McCullough.

I started the first book on December 23^rd 2025 and finished the seventh and last book on September 29^th this year. It took time because I mostly read in the evening when I go to bed, and the seven books have an average total page count of 5500 pages. This depends of course a bit on editions etc.

So what are the books about? The late Roman republic is the short answer. The long answer is the entirety of Rome at that time. The series starts in 110 BCE and ends in 27 BCE. We start with the Rise of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, see the birth of Gaius Julius Caesar, his invasion of Gaul, his murder and the rise of and struggle between Marc Antony and Gaius Octavian Caesar.

I have learned more about Roman customs, laws, religious rites, military and more than I ever thought I would. McCullough did over ten years of research before writing the first book and it shows. Historians have praised the books for their authenticity and attention to detail. McCullough herself admitted that she stuck to history where she could and filled in the gaps with measured imagination where necessary. At the end of the day, these books are fiction and an entertaining story has to come first, but she respects the history. I only found two instances where she changed established details, and in the end that doesn't matter too much.

Critics have pointed out that McCullough was a massive Caesar fan, and they are right. She does portray him as almost perfect, but I can't blame her too much. If there is one ancient Roman almost everyone can name it is Caesar. Her idolization also makes it easier to hate on his enemies both political and military, which again makes the fiction more compelling.

The ongoing thread in the background is the fall of the republic. The inflexibility and sheer stubbornness of the conservatives, the rise of political violence and demagogues together with the growth of Rome from a small city state to an massive empire puts the republic on a slippery slope it never got away from. The last book, Anthony and Cleopatra (2007) ends with the senate hailing Octavian as Caesar Augustus, essentially confirming him as emperor in all but name.

Something I found very compelling was seeing people be born and then suddenly realize who they would grow up to be. Names like Octavian, Brutus, Marc Anthony, Cicero, Cato the Younger and more stand tall in Roman history, and you meet them all as children. See them grow and become the famous adults they were. All super fascinating stuff.

What I found hardest to deal with in these volumes are the names. Early on there are so many families, and they all give their children the same names over and over. Take the Julii family. Almost all the boys are called Gaius Julius, and all the girls are called Julia. The Gaius Julius Caesar's father was Sextus Julius Caesar, his uncle and grandfather were Gaius Julius, his aunt was Julia and so was his other aunt but she at least was called Julilla. Now do this with more than a dozen families and it is hard to keep track of. By the mid part of book two I was somewhat familiar with them and by the end of book three it wasn't a problem any more. Handily McCullough added a long list of persons and terminology in every book, so you can check there to help you stay on track.

So, do I recommend these books? Oh yes!! They are magnificent. I learned so much and had such a great time learning. There are also many similarities with modern politics and can help the reader understand why some things are being said and done today. A massive seven part masterpiece you'd do well to read if you like ancient Rome.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Madness

This week I went obscure, really obscure. I watched:

Madness, aka Gli occhi della luna, or The eyes of the moon. (1971).

Three madmen escape from the asylum using the oldest trick in the book. Two are irrelevant, it's the third one, Paolo Lupi (Thomas Hunter) that is important. He is tall and handsome but unfortunately also a deranged and violent sex maniac. Eventually, desperate for shelter and food, he makes his way to an empty villa somewhere in the Roman countryside. At the same time we meet a group of young party animals. They are planning a party in a villa owned by the family of one of the girls. Once there, they want to party and experiment with LSD. Yes, obviously it is the same villa.

Alright, so Madness is considered a “lost Giallo” since it vanished shortly after its theatrical release in 1971. One rough copy was discovered in 2007, and I do mean rough. The reason for its disappearance isn't known, but it is the only movie the director, Cesare Rau made. He also has two second unit or assistant director credits and that's it.

The movie isn't badly shot at all, and the actors are decent. The music is unusually good, but very repetitive. Besides a couple of pieces of soundtrack, Madness features “She's a Stranger” by the Italian band Capsicum Red, which is a good song, but they play I over and over and over. I mean a group of cool kids go partying in a villa and they bring one song? The story is good, but I don't think the scriptwriters or the director were really up to the task.

The movie wastes so much time, its almost criminal. The beginning especially is rough, spending so much time in a club with people dancing and then after a bit, it goes back just to show more people dancing. Lupi's escape is fine, but there as well the balance is pretty off. He meets a middle aged man and helps him with his car, a scene that sort of does nothing. I say sort of, because you can argue it illustrates Lupi's attitude towards men vs how he sees women. Still it drags pretty badly. Overall, I think the editing is the problem. The movie jumps back and forth, repeats itself and spends time on scenes that are completely irrelevant, and no one needs that. I have in fact left a lot unsaid, because I don't want to be too negative.

Overall, it is easy to dismiss this movie as cheap sleazy trash, but I don't think that is fair. For all its problems they tried really hard, and I think that shows. There is real effort here but everyone can't be Dario Argento, who's directorial debut was the celebrated The Bird with the Crystal Plumage.

Once I was done watching, two things struck me. Minor Spoilers Ahead. Lupi has moments of clarity, and once another murder happens he is horrified and begs God to cure him. He doesn't want to be a killer, but he is and soon loses control again. At the end we realize that one of the party kids who can't keep his hands of girls starts giggling in the same way Lupi did after a murder. It is subtle but really nicely done. I don't think its meant to be a passing of the torch type thing, but rather an illustration of how certain types can easily go too far and become something dangerous. A slippery slope.

So, do I recommend this movie? Not really. Madness isn't even really a Giallo, if that matters to you, but genre adjacent. What I have been trying to say is that there is a good story hiding in a clumsily made movie and that is frustrating. I don't dislike Madness, but there isn't all that much to like either. That said, you should make up your own mind, but there are so many better movies out there.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

What makes a Giallo a Giallo?

It is no secret that I love the Giallo genre. I have written enough about them to make that obvious. However the question: "what makes a movie a Giallo?" is always at the back of my mind. There is no clear answer to this question. Yes, there are movies like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970), Deep Red (1975), Lizard in a Woman's Skin (1971) and The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh (1971), to name a few, that are undeniably Gialli, but where does one draw the line? What is necessary for a movie to be a Giallo? The sex? The gore? The killer in black gloves? Well none of those things hold the key by themselves, and although those tropes are extremely common in most Gialli, they don't define the genre as such. 

There is some mix of Noir, Thriller, Horror, Mystery and Exploitation that needs to be balanced just right for a movie to truly be a Giallo. Late stage Gialli seem to drop most of the Noir in favor of Horror, and most fans will rate those movies poorly, and even if they do like them, they aren't always considered true Gialli. Stagefright (1987) is one such. It isn't a true Giallo, but it is close, and I do like it. 

I would argue that there can't be too many or ideally any supernatural forces at work for it to count as a Giallo. In Lucio Fulci's The Psychic (1977) we have a woman who sees glimpses of things to come, but that is pretty much as far as the supernatural can go. Once you start mixing in ghosts, zombies, witches and magic, you are firmly in Horror territory. This is why Argento's Three Mothers trilogy cannot be considered Gialli. You can have fake supernatural forces though, that has been done successfully.  

Yesterday I tripped over a documentary that does a good job at answering some of these questions. Officially it is a documentary about Dario Argento who's career includes some of the highest rated Gialli in movie history. He did not invent the genre, but he set the bar and he set it high. 

Unfortunately there are heavy spoilers for a lot of movies, so if you are looking to dive into the Gialli genre yourself DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO! Three years ago I posted a two part video from the wonderful TheKingInGiallo channel that explores this in a spoiler free environment. 

That post is here: https://eccentricspheres.blogspot.com/2023/10/what-is-giallo-really.html

If however you are a veteran of the genre, or are mostly curious to learn more but have no intention of watching the movies yourself, have at it. I found it really interesting. Again, it contains a lot of SPOILERS!

This is the Argento documentary Yellow Fever, and I'll embed it below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDOJC1pxF4 

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week! 

 

 

What have You Done To Solange?

This week I knocked a Giallo I've been meaning to watch from the old watch-list:

What have You Done To Solange? (1972).

We open on a couple, Rosseni (Fabio Testi) and Elizabeth (Cristina Galbo) floating in a rowboat while making out. She sees a glimpse of a knife and what could be a murder and is too freaked out to keep having fun. This is when we learn that she is in the final year of Catholic school, and he is her gym teacher. Yeah... Then we find out that he is married to another teacher at the same school, Herta (Karin Baal). The next day Rosseni learns that there was a murder and the victim was not only a student at his school but also his girlfriends classmate. Rosseni becomes a suspect and in typical Giallo fashion investigates the killings himself even though he has neither the authority or the training to do so. I'm not going to spoil anything further, but there are a lot more murders and other grisly scenes.

What have You Done To Solange? is usually listed with the seedier Gialli, and is often paired up with What Have They Done to You Daughters? (1974) which I have seen before. The main reason I wanted to watch Solange is so I can stop mixing up which of the similar sounding movies I had seen. There is also a third movie in this “series”, Rings of Fear (1978), but I know nothing about it.

What have You Done To Solange is directed by Massimo Dallamano, who apart from his directing career also worked as cinematographer on A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More. His own cinematographer for Solange was again Joe D'Amato, tying neatly if unintentionally into last week's movie.

Solange is a well made Giallo, the music is by Morricone, the cinematography is solid and functional and the actors are competent. The star of the show though is the plot. Naturally I can't go into detail, but I was kept guessing throughout, and I still failed to figure it out even though I was on the right track.

The aforementioned seediness is absolutely there, not just because a married man in his thirties (I'm guessing) is dating an 18 year old, but because someone is repeatedly spying on the girls in the shower, which means that Solange has a lot of nudity. The gore factor is middle of the road with quite a lot of the red stuff, but the camera doesn't linger on it.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, to Giallo fans but no to most others. What Have You Done To Solange? is a fairly average Giallo in many ways, but there is a darkness here that left me feeling a bit weird afterwards. This is not a mark against the movie, rather I wasn't ready for it. Hardcore thriller fans should still be able to enjoy it. I might be overselling a bit here, but without being able to go into details, this is the best I can do.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

A Quiet Place to Kill

This week I stepped back into the world of Giallo with:

A Quiet Place to Kill (1970).

We meet Helen (Carroll Baker), a race car driver who has a bad crash. Upon leaving the hospital she gets an invitation from her ex husband Maurice (Jean Sorel) to stay at his villa to recuperate. She takes the invitation, and upon arriving discovers that the invitation was sent by Maurice's new wife Constance (Anna Proclemer). Maurice is an incorrigible flirt and is very keen to “get to know” Helen again, despite her reluctance. Soon Helen finds herself embroiled in two potential murder plots as Maurice and Constance are not happy together.

A Quiet Place to Kill is directed by Umberto Lenzi, perhaps more famous for his horror movies like Cannibal Ferox. He does have a pretty varied career with several Gialli, lots of horror and even a few sword and sandal movies. Fun fact, the main camera operator for A Quiet Place to Kill is Joe D'Amato (as Aristide Massaccesi), who went on to have quite a blood drenched directorial career himself.

A Quiet Place to Kill is a very muted Giallo, with a minimum of blood, no black gloved killer stalking the victim, and only some mild nudity. In many ways it comes across as Hitchcock passed through an Italian filter. This is not a bad thing, I thoroughly enjoyed the tension. The chemistry between Baker and Sorel is very good, you can absolutely believe that their characters were married, bitterly divorced but still hot for each other. Sorel does a fantastic job as the charismatic ladies man, always confident and smooth yet completely untrustworthy. Baker does an equally great job portraying a woman who goes from confident to increasingly paranoid with nerves stretched to the breaking point.

The rest of the cast is good, the music is perfectly correct and the movie is very nicely shot. Personally and perhaps unfairly I always compare Gialli cinematography to The Fifth Cord (1971), because that movie has multiple scenes that belong in a museum of art. The cinematography in A Quiet Place to Kill is competent, if unremarkable, and doesn't get in the way of the movie.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. A Quiet Place to Kill is a great starter Giallo, it's not too convoluted or too horror adjacent for a general audience. Like I mentioned above it is very Hitchcock-esque, and although somewhat slow at times, it does a great job throwing curve balls at you when you least expect it. A Quiet Place to Kill is nowhere near one of my favorite Gialli, but I am really pleased to have seen it. If you're in the mood for a quality thriller give A Quiet Place to Kill a chance.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!