How did I not know about this podcast years ago?!

Well… the 4 plus hour running time was certainly daunting to behold. I maybe made it through one hour of one episode. I appreciate the commitment to the genre to be sure, but people who aren’t familiar with Joe D’amato’s filmography and “blush” at the titles, and say things like “Some Udo Kier Dracula movie” cannot be trusted with that amount of my time to discuss Italian Cinema. Maybe I should have listened to the first episode and maybe they said something like “we don’t know anything about Italian cinema and we’re sheltered.” I don’t know. I still wouldn’t listen, but I would understand the ignorance on full display here. Good luck to you guys. This one just isn’t for me. By the way… it’s “Blood for Dracula” aka “Andy Warhol’s Dracula” that is the Udo Kier Dracula movie.

Very entertaining podcast with Chris, Al and sometimes Matt discussing Giallo films. Great discussions and information while not taking themselves too serious.

This might be called an "old school" podcast; you know the kind we used to listen to 10 years ago in which a couple slightly (or very) drunk dudes chat it up about a topic they barely know for over 2 hours. These depended (and depend) on the charm and chemistry of the speakers. Well this pod certainly has that - the guys crack each other up, have nice turns of phrase, keep it moving if on a rather slow rambling pace, especially in the chatting first 45 min or so. The main problem I have here is the guys don't really seem to know more than the bare minimum of the genre. They get names wrong, pull from sometimes slightly mixed memories, don't always make the connections and give little more insight than a couple of your friends yammering on the couch. ("Isn't she that chick from ...") That's the vibe, I get it, but when they often resort to simply describing the plot of the film scene by scene you have to reconsider if this is worth 3 hours of your time.. This might be good for people who have never watched the film. A secondary problem is they are often dismissive of things they don't understand or like. A carefully constructed procedural like Blood-Stained Butterfly is dismissed as unclear when to any careful viewer it's anything but. They also have unkind nicknames for Susan Scott/Nieves Navaro and Anita Strindberg, two impressive and important figures in 70s gialli (for various reasons). Come on guys, really, you're going to body-sham or dismiss two important female figures in a genre that often prided itself with depicting progressive (and sensualized) versions of female agency (and usually in a horror context)? Isn't there something worth talking about besides their looks? A little too adolescent, a little too thin on insight.

Bad editing seriously edit out the ums but likes etc, overall I do enjoy your reviews and a good podcast.

Glad to have you guys back podcasting about giallo films!