hintzde1

As teens in the mid to late 1970s, we often went to the drive-in for our weekend's entertainment, loaded with six packs (drinking age was 18 in Ohio for some beer). One night, we were pretty toasted and tired for the third movie on the bill called 'The Hollywood Hillside Strangler'. Somehow, I fought through the haze and noticed the peculiar artiness of this otherwise typical serial killer story. The characters were real, the dialogue was strong, although the atmosphere was on the dreamy side. Not David Lynch's Los Angeles, but I would discover that much later. I was really surprised that there was art in this exploitation flick and some years later searched for this film. Despite many resources, I couldn't identify it. I thought it was a Ray Dennis Steckler film, but no, not quite. Finally when I found this movie called "insanity' on the print I watched, I got the reward of seeing this drive-in classic again. The writing is still quite original and the direction, tone, and style all are wildly successful compared to other genre films in this budget range.

Overall, this is a good film, not great as it has to struggle with the depth it needs to explore. I think that people with a working knowledge of the subject will enjoy it, but many will not be interested.

My background does include statistics, amateur bridge playing, and professional level blackjack play with a full knowledge of card counting and some (intellectual only) knowledge of cheating schemes. This helped me enjoy the film, but left me a bit frustrated.

Another reviewer correctly pointed out that they needed to explore the statistical angle further. I fully agree and can say that the statistical expert in the film was highly unconvincing as he was comparing apples to oranges. The issue here is, not unlike blackjack, you do not and will not cheat (or be shown as a legal card counter) on every hand. There will be pivotal times where this will be needed and will be used. Ergo, the statistics will be applied to less than the total amount of hands filmed. And they may not have had enough hands to examine. Full data and full tournament bridge understanding would be needed with the statistics.

I will say as a blackjack expert that can spot skill levels in other players quickly, that the other bridge players' vague quotes that 'they just know' does have more of a ring of truth to it than many would expect. In blackjack, we make cover plays that are not the optimal moves so that the casinos will not bar us. Because we know we can be spotted by people that know. It is a cat and mouse game and it goes in in all kinds of other competitions.

So thank you Dirty Tricks filmmakers for working my brain a little bit here. I wish more clarity was there, but as in life, you don't always get a clarified and obvious truth revealed.

I saw this on first release and not since, so I can't really do a full review. I remember Jack Palance chewing up the scenery taking evil to rarefied heights. But it was all quite enjoyable. I mostly wanted to clarify that Christopher Lee was the host and gave a fairly substantial introduction. He may have had interludes and a closing, but this was forty years ago, so I am not sure. Hessler and Palance do well with a limited budget. Definitely not a must see classic, but I would like to give it one more nostalgic viewing.