‘The Monster of Florence’ Director Stefano Sollima on ‘Completely Different’ Second Chapter of Netflix’s Hit Serial Killer Series: ‘A Very Complex Story to Tell’ (EXCLUSIVE)

On April 29, 1992, Italian crime scene investigators unearthed a 22-caliber bullet with the letter “H” stamped on its base buried in the vegetable garden of the Tuscan home of Pietro Pacciani, a farm laborer, who subsequently become dubbed “The Monster of Florence.”

Cut to present day. On a balmy mid-September afternoon, roughly 34 years later, Italian genre director Stefano Sollima — who is reconstructing the still-unsolved case for the screen in his eponymous Netflix thriller — is busy on a bustling hillside set on the outskirts of Rome.

Sollima is setting up key scenes of the new three-episode installment of “The Monster of Florence” anthology series. These are the crucial moments that led to the unearthing of a key piece of evidence, resulting in Pacciani being convicted of eight double murders involving couples parked in cars around Florence that gripped Italy with terror between the late 1960s to the mid-’80s.

Pacciani was subsequently acquitted after this evidence was overturned by modern scientific technology.

But on the monitor, as the scene plays out, Pacciani — played by an actor whose name has yet to be divulged by Netflix — looks pretty spooked as he watches forensic experts drill into the ground.

Sollima, in his customary all-black outfit consisting of jeans and a T-shirt, points out that Pacciani’s real rustic home in Mercatale Val di Pesa — a hamlet south of Florence in the Chianti hills — has been meticulously reconstructed brick by brick. The Pacciani trial scenes, however, were shot in the actual maximum security courtroom in Florence where his historic 1994 trial took place.

Police began to suspect that the crimes had been committed by a group led by Pacciani known as the “Snack Buddies,” but he died before the second trial could begin. Two of his alleged accomplices were convicted of participating in some the murders.

The second chapter of “The Monster of Florence,” which in October 2025 became Netflix’s most-watched series globally in its first week in release, focuses on the “Snack Buddies” lead. And, in particular, on the figure of Pacciani, who was at the center of a marathon 1994 trial filled with unexpected twists and turns. Pacciani was given a life sentence for killing six of the eight couples and also found guilty of raping his two daughters. That ruling was subsequently overturned and Pacciani died in 1998 from a heart attack, at the age of 73, before he could be retried.

The limited anthology series has reunited Sollima with writer Leonardo Fasoli and ace Italian cinematographer Paolo Carnera, both of whom Sollima worked with on “Gomorrah” and cocaine trafficking drama “ZeroZeroZero.” Sollima has also helmed Hollywood movies such as “Sicario: Day of the Soldado” and “Without Remorse.”

“The Monster of Florence” saga is being produced by Wildside, a Fremantle company, and Sollima’s AlterEgo production shingle. The producers are Sonia Rovai, Gina Gardini, Sollima and Lorenzo Mieli.

Below, Sollima speaks to Variety on set about “The Monster of Florence’s” new episodes.

Stefano, tell me about this new installment from a narrative standpoint. What’s different this time around?

The whole story unfolds within a massive narrative arc that spans the roughly 20 years of the hunt for the Monster. In the first installment, we covered the so-called “Sardinian lead.” We started with two major investigations and looked at everyone who had been accused, tried, and imprisoned over the decades on suspicion of being the Monster. Now, this second segment focuses on Pietro Pacciani and his so-called “Snack Buddies,” as the media dubbed them.

This segment represents an almost total shift, which is why I call “The Monster” an anthology series. Even though it’s set within the context of a 20-year manhunt, this specific part of the story — including the investigators, the protagonists and the Monsters themselves — is completely different from the first installment. In a sense, these are two experiences that you can enjoy independently of one another. They are self-contained narratives embedded within the larger framework of the hunt. Pacciani is perhaps this story’s most iconic figure, especially in Italy. People here feel a certain familiarity with his name. Yet, Pacciani is a far more controversial figure than popular belief suggests. He was accused and convicted in the first trial, then acquitted, only to be charged again — through his associates — with being the Monster of Florence.

So Pacciani has been charged with the murders but is still not fully convicted, right?

Let’s say that it’s a mystery that is still debated today, especially among those convinced of his guilt. And it’s a very complex story to tell. But our format since the first season is that you choose the perspective of the single Monster.

Now that there is just one primary suspect, does that change the structure?

The narrative structure is perhaps more linear now, even though this part of the story, concerning Pacciani, spans from 1951 to 1996, covering a massively long time frame. However, unlike the previous cases — where multiple people were accused of the same murder, but were linked by an incredible web of friendships and relationships — here we are dealing with essentially a single culprit. That’s why it’s likely to be a bit more linear. And I have to say, the way the investigative hypothesis is presented is quite compelling and striking. There are a whole series of coincidences. But obviously, they aren’t enough to prove his guilt. In fact, they are still a subject of debate.

The case is still open. How did you contend with that in storytelling terms?

As we speak, from a legal standpoint, there is no single identified culprit regarding the eight double murders. Even if you consider the convictions of the “Snack Buddies,” there are still three double-murder cases which, right now — from a strictly legal procedural perspective — lack a convicted perpetrator. In other words, there was no definitive, scientifically certain resolution of this case. Which is why the investigation has continued [to this day]. We stuck to the legal records of the case and all available information. We interviewed and met some of the people who lived through it, specifically the investigators from the prosecutor’s office — though, naturally, many have since passed away, so we spoke with the survivors — and we based our work on the official records. Everything you see reflects what’s in the files and what actually happened.

What is the biggest challenge for you from a narrative standpoint?

You have to immerse yourself in the investigators’ perspective. Believing what they believed, which is perhaps the most difficult part of the exercise [as a director]. You are essentially recounting the stories of the same 16 victims of violence, yet adapting them each time to a new Monster. That is arguably the most complex aspect, because you have to ensure that the narrative is historically accurate while also maintaining a cinematic structure. It’s all about finding that balance. But perhaps the biggest challenge of all was being extremely careful not to pass moral judgment on the story or any of the characters being portrayed.

Does the more linear arc allow you to add tension to the thriller aspect?

Yes, for sure. But it also heightens the the human aspect in terms of the relationships. Naturally, it isn’t just about Pacciani. There’s the father-daughter dynamic, the mother-daughter relationship and his ties to the “Snack Buddies” including, of course, his connection to characters in the first chapter. It’s a portrait of human relationships that, to me, is the most compelling aspect. When you decide to tell a story about evil from the perpetrator’s perspective, you need the courage and the ambition to really focus on the character and his entire web of relationships. These are the very things that, in a way, turn Pacciani into a monster. Not necessarily the Monster of Florence, but a figure with monstrous traits nonetheless.

Ultimately, the investigation is a pretext to bring many monstrous human beings to the fore, right?

Exactly. Maybe the best way of telling this story is to try a reconstruct all of its many versions. That is certainly what we tried to do with this massive narrative arc, to experience events as the people involved experienced them. Each theory has to seem like the true one. With every episode and every chapter, you have to become convinced — just like everyone else was — that you are on the right track. The wonderful thing is that there are many monsters being depicted in these stories. Obviously, they couldn’t all have been the Monster of Florence. Some of them were just monsters.