Tha se do stin Kolasi, agapi mou

"See You In Hell, My Darling" (1999) is effektively the third title in the "Shanghai" trilogy; though it is more a spin-off from "Shanghai Surprise" and "Sweet Bunch". The late great Nikos Nikolaidis used familiar elements from the mentioned films to awaken the same feelings of familiarity with the viewer to those the two female leads, go through during their circle existense in the villa (effectively purgatory). Here new circles flow into existence every night, through the (way too large) swiming pool on the property. Nikolaidis packed so much story into each carefully crafted emotionally laden and perfectly captured scene that the film can serve as an example on how to capture atmosphere and pace. The acting by both leads served Nikolaidis' intentions perfectly and his ability to make almost anything look and feel erotic contributes immensely to this cause but also to the ever-present psycological game, which plays out between the female leads. The film has an ease and elegance to it, which is second to none. 9/10

Ps the film contains some nudity, vomiting and urination. If the body and its functions bugs you, give it (and esp the other two mentioned films) a miss.

It's been a while since I last saw a Nikolaides film, one of the pioneering and original uncompromising Greek directors, if not the only one. I thought "Tha se do stin kolasi agapi mou" (=I will see you in hell my love), was part of the Singapore Sling saga, but according to the directors comments, "Tha se do stin kolasi..." is the beginning of a new saga, more personal, on subjects like damned loves, friendship, traitorship and more.

Stylish, atmospheric and very erotic, a film which is likely to equally disturb and fascinate the audience with an open heart & mind. The traditional but intense Nikolaidis cinematography style is ever-present and , as usual, the best part about his films is the performances, dialogues, tabboos broken, fears and norms questioned. Not surprisingly, his characters are at best alienated if not somewhat crazy and delirius.

This is not an ultra-violent or bad-taste film, like say, Singapore Sling, but it's not for the sensitive as well. If you like challenging cinema, watch every single Nikolaidis picture. Look out for a very interesting interview featured in the DVD.

I've seen most of the films made by the late Nikos Nikolaidis, and he was clearly a talent, far more advanced in cinematic technique and raw ideas than the lionized superstars of the film world, the Nolans, Tarantinos, etc. But he was simply unable to connect to a general audience, becoming a Poster Child for the hermetic director of entertainments for a sliver of elitists (see: Peter Greenaway, the champ).

It's a shame, as I was spellbound by the first reel or so of SEE YOU IN HELL, MY DARLING, a 1999 Nikos film never released in America and now available strictly on the collectors' circuit. The shock effects of his most famous works SINGAPORE SLING and SWEET BUNCH, both of which got plenty of exposure 20 years back, are present, but a precise, brilliantly surreal visual style means serious film buffs need to see this mature work, even if they come away ultimately unsatisfied as I was.

Essentially, Nikos shoots his wad in the opening reels, overwhelming the viewer with precise, spectacularly inventive compositions and visual motifs that suggest a genius at work. Unfortunately the remaining 80 minutes are repetitious in the extreme, at times almost suggesting a Moebius strip approach (a la Nolan), but heading nowhere.

The bulk of the action is a cat and mouse bondage/torture/sex ride between the two beautiful, barely-clad heroines Vicky Harris and Valeria Christodoulidou (there's a contrast in stage names for you). Harris resembles the great '90s porn star Selena Steele, while her victim, Valeria is a more ethereal, vulnerable beauty.

One of the most striking early (and oft-repeated) images of the film consists of highly erotic tracking shots of Valeria's platform heels slinking along outside or in the lavish villa where all the action takes place. The director repeatedly uses a horizontal slats/Venetian blinds effect to introduce or remove a shot, putting the audience directly in the position of a voyeur, highly appropriate to the sexual antics ongoing.

With Vicky the sadist and Valeria generally the object, the twisted games on view are kinky enough to satisfy any of Nikos' fans. One purposely off-putting device is Valeria constantly puking; we also see her urinating at one point and are never afraid that Nikos has put his bad-boy obscenity and scatology to rest. He knows a good shock effect, but certainly overdoes them via repetition.

The film is set at night, and the swimming pool outside is responsible for some of his most exciting imagery. It is used to set the stage for wavy blue and reflected lighting effects bathing the nearby mansion, and some outstanding underwater photography of horrific content as both women frequently end up in the pool fighting with each other or a floating male corpse. I wasn't caught napping when this turned out to be an elaborate build-up to a terrific (and logical conclusion) final freeze-frame 3-shot in the water.

Throughout the movie Vicky is poised to poison Valeria, and the vomiting is clearly related to this. For me it amounted to too much red herring action, as both of them are repeatedly killed, but resurrected, since we don't know if what we're watching is real or imagined. I'm in the minority camp re: Chris Nolan, as I get quite exasperated at his overly complex toying with similar notions in MEMENTO, INCEPTION and particularly THE PRESTIGE, but Nikos goes way beyond in stretching credibility past the breaking point. It is no wonder that he has such a small following, compared to Nolan who is perhaps the most popular director in the world in the 21st Century (ugh!).

Much of the content of SEE YOU IN HELL is cryptic, whether you understand the Greek dialog or not. But I can't recall watching a more visually striking film in recent years, and was equally impressed with the auteur's razor sharp editing. It is clear he got exactly what he wanted, just unclear how he expected an audience to connect with his strange wavelength.