I can see what Voor is saying re the film representing the purest form of giallo, but I can't say I entirely agree and after chatting with the directors/producer after the film, I felt they tentatively took my point. I'll state now, I love the genre, but this was not a giallo, it was an arthouse film that chose to take on the staples of the giallo movie.
The makers obviously adore the genre and went to great lengths to get the necessary homages and imagery in place, but, whether we like it or not, the genuine giallo should be a pulp novel brought to the screen - with style. This was an arthouse film playing within the remits of a giallo framework and negating the plot element.
I loved it and it had me nodding away to various asides, but as a whole, and i said as much at the Q&A, how the hell did you get that financed? Appealing to people like me is one thing, but bankrolling something almost Greenawayesque to the tune of EUR 680,000 with very little chance of finding a receptive audience was extremely brave given their lack of track record.
Fair play to them for making it happen and making me very happy. I've been recommending it left, right and centre, but I'm not hopeful of a mass uptake. Not a giallo. Maybe the essence of one, but that's like saying a lump of meat, some spuds and a few bits of veg covered in meat flavoured water makes a roast. It's not about ingedients, it's about the end product. From the above analogy, I could just as easily make a stew. I'd enjoy it, but it wouldn't be a roast.