Cold Eyes of Fear (1971)
Review by Daniel Emery Taylor

I am pretty lenient as far as films go. Even if I do not care for a particular method or subject matter, I can usually pick out some positives. I like high drama, sprawling epics, trashy horror, low-brow comedies, psychological thrillers, and a plethora of other genres and styles. I am a fan of cinema in general and am often hard-pressed to find a film that I hate. Though I can certainly pick out a bad movie when I see one, I am able to find myself entertained in most any circumstance.

That being said, there is one unforgiveable sin a movie can commit. That grievous transgression is the act of being boring. I can overlook a lot. I can look past barely coherent plots, bad acting, poor special effects, and unskilled camera work. If a movie is entertaining I'm locked in. To be boring is to betray the very base requirement for a film. Movies are supposed to be entertaining. Why would people make them otherwise? Sure, there is an entire class of filmmaker that is more interested in entertaining THEMSELVES instead of the audience, but overall most people set out to make entertaining films. Sometimes they fail but I can appreciate the effort. There then comes a class of film that comes along and causes you to question what the production company was thinking. You look at it and wonder "Who, in what culture or decade, could have ever found this the least bit entertaining or interesting?"

It is that which brings me to my humble review of "Gli Occhi Freddi Della Paura." (The DVD calls it "Cold Eyes Of Fear," but the title screen calls it "Desperate Moments.") For the sake of this review, I'll stick with "Cold Eyes Of Fear."

"Cold Eyes Of Fear" is an excruciating tale of home invasion, captivity, ransom, and violence. Lawyer Gianni Garko takes his paid date home for the evening, only to find a dead butler waiting on him. The couple are then confronted by psychotic heel Julián Mateos. What follows in enough twists and turns to constantly keep you wondering what is going on. It is clear that Mateos has no real interest in Garko but only wants to get at his uncle, corrupt judge Fernando Rey. These events are followed by betrayal, fights, and attempted escapes. Will Garko live to see the end of this evening? Will his lady friend be able to fend off the dangerous Mateos? There is more than revenge on his mind.

What can I say about this film? It's boring. It's damn boring. It's just ninety minutes of people talking with an occasional fist-fight thrown in to keep you from turning it off. Sure, the movie starts off promising. We see a man tussling with a buxom blonde, using his intimidating blade to cut away her clothing. She struggles and attempts to escape. He catches her! What follows? Rape? Bondage? Sweet "I've Sexually Attracted To My Captor" action? Nope. It's all some weird druggie stage show. It's like Broadway if Broadway was interesting.

From there, Garko takes his hooker home. He starts working his mojo. They discover a corpse. They're taken captive. The bad guy promises horrible things to come, but they just end up talking about it for an hour. A couple of other people enter the scenario. A couple of punches are thrown. There are a lot of quick edits, unnecessary close-ups, and kitschy camera effects. I suppose this is what they called "psychedelic." You keep watching, convinced something else is going to happen. It doesn't. The last five minutes of the film are mildy entertaining with an overly dramatic fight scene, but by this point you're just too far gone.

I just question the direction of the film. Each time you think it's going to take a certain path, you find that you are wrong and it goes right back to the endless dialogue. I'm sure this qualifies as "plot twists" in someone's definition, but to me it's like cinematic blue balls. You get excited, anticipating forthcoming action. The action does not come. Neither do you. I'm not saying that films based around heavy dialogue are necessarily bad. Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino have both made healthy careers out of it. It just requires the dialogue to be interesting and move the story along.

I also question the score. Now, granted, this was one of the selling points of the film. It says so right on the DVD cover. "Stunning jazz score!" I just wonder how they're supposed to build a feeling of terror and suspense when the background music makes it sound like you're watching an episode of "The Cosby Show."

I know that somewhere an elitist film snob will stumble across this review and say "Obviously, this man has no knowledge of the giallo or foreign film! Obviously, this American swine only watches trash like 'The Fast & The Furious' and can't appreciate films from another culture or era! I spit in his general direction!" I am certain that this movie appeals to someone, somewhere. I just don't know who that would be. I am both well-versed in the giallo and Italian cinema in general. I am quite a fan of the works of Bava, Argento, Fulci, and Avati. I even recognize that director Enzo G. Castellari has much better movies to his credit, including the classic "Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato" (also known as "The Inglorious Bastards"). I just did not at all care for this particular film and spent most of it in a state of stasis. I also kept questioning if the movie would be better if I took drugs.

My personal recommendation is to avoid this one. If you are a fan of artsy, talkative movies filmed in a psychedelic style, you may want to give it a look. Just don't ever say that I didn't warn you.