Anybody ever watch this drunk?
Or while stoned. This is a scary enough movie any day... I wonder if it would make it less scary or more.
shareI'll give it a try...
MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Anybody ever watch this drunk?
No
shareI feel like if I were really wasted just the arythmic timing of the title card getting all cut up would be enough to make me think I was wigging out.
Ultimately I'd probably just fall alseep.
Drunk? Not that I can recall. But stoned? I'm afraid so.
When I was 18 or 19, a couple friends and I got toked up and went to see it at Santa Monica's Mayfair Theater (you've seen its interior in Young Frankenstein). In that condition, every instance of Joe Stefano's "doublespeak" sent us into giggles.
"Meeting in secret...so we can be secretive."
"You make respectability sound disrespectful."
"I refuse to think of disgusting things because they disgust me."
"Eating in an office is just too officious."
And so on. With some good weed, it doesn't take much to bring on the giggles, admittedly, but I doubt we were very popular with the other audience members. Still, if anyone complained, we were too wasted to notice.
Strange how the same movie can have completely different effects at different times of life. First time I saw it, on ABC's initial 1967 broadcast, my fourteen-year-old heart thumped wildly at all the appropriate moments. By twenty or so years later, it had become one of my "comfort" movies. Happy or depressed, watching it was like stepping into well-worn slippers, wrapping up in a warm robe and sinking into overstuffed couch cushions. Or like a dependable old friend that never lets you down and is welcome anytime they drop in, telling the same stories over and over, yet always capable of revealing some unexpected little characteristic that had escaped notice before.
I've got at least a dozen films like that: watch-anytime "old reliables," and for whatever odd reason, most of them are "downer" films that present the darker sides of life rather than comedies or other so-called uplifting fare; Double Indemnity and Sunset Blvd; The Sweet Smell Of Success; Chinatown; Laura; Crossfire and other postwar "noirs;" the 1954 A Star Is Born; Cabaret; Network (although that one's pretty funny in its bitterly cynical way); any one of Val Lewton's economical, what-you-don't-see-is-scarier-than-what-you-do thrillers.
And a lotta Hitchcocks.
Drunk? Not that I can recall. But stoned? I'm afraid so.
---
Heh. Doghouse. Always with a welcome post -- if more intermittant these days, alas. It is our loss.
---
When I was 18 or 19, a couple friends and I got toked up and went to see it at Santa Monica's Mayfair Theater (you've seen its interior in Young Frankenstein).
---
Back in the day(his later life), Cary Grant frequested the Mayfair Theater for certain "Olde English" shows that reminded him of his youth in England.
---
In that condition, every instance of Joe Stefano's "doublespeak" sent us into giggles.
"Meeting in secret...so we can be secretive."
"You make respectability sound disrespectful."
"I refuse to think of disgusting things because they disgust me."
"Eating in an office is just too officious."
---
Ha. I've often noted(as others have) how many outrageous "Oscar snubs" were doled out to Psycho: Picture, Actor, Actress(Leigh , instead of the Best Supporting Actress nom she DID get); Score(!!!!), Film Editing(!!!) but whether or not Stefano's screenplay was snubbed is sometimes a matter of light debate. The story is mainly from novelist Robert Bloch, the visual approaches (often silent) from director Hitchcock, so Stefano's role was mainly ...dialogue. And while some of that dialogue is famous ("A boy's best friend is his mother," "We all got a little mad sometimes") and some is simply nifty ("If it doesn't jell, it isn't aspic...and this ain't jeliing..its not coming together...something's missing.")
... some is rather blatantly "noticeable" -- all those "word reversals." Brilliant or overdone?
I'm not sure, but I still think Psycho has enough great lines and great structure(Hitch and Stefano IMPROVING upon Bloch)...that the screenplay DID get snubbed.
--
And so on. With some good weed, it doesn't take much to bring on the giggles, admittedly, but I doubt we were very popular with the other audience members. Still, if anyone complained, we were too wasted to notice.
---
Eh...we've all heard those people ..and we've all BEEN those people. Its fun sometimes.
Strange how the same movie can have completely different effects at different times of life. First time I saw it, on ABC's initial 1967 broadcast, my fourteen-year-old heart thumped wildly at all the appropriate moments.
---
Well, we know that I was not allowed to see that broadcast...but it affected me anyway. The story scarily told to me by other kids..and told MORE bloody.
---
By twenty or so years later, it had become one of my "comfort" movies. Happy or depressed, watching it was like stepping into well-worn slippers, wrapping up in a warm robe and sinking into overstuffed couch cushions. Or like a dependable old friend that never lets you down and is welcome anytime they drop in, telling the same stories over and over, yet always capable of revealing some unexpected little characteristic that had escaped notice before.
---
Watching Psycho over and over(er, once a year like me) IS like hearing the same stories over and over again...but they are great stories, and the film has -- in a final bit of irony -- gone from something utterly sick and horrifying to something...comforting? Its from a much more innocent era, and its creepiness is oddly warm and inviting now; yes the murders are shocking and cruel, but the film has LIKEABLE characters in Norman, Marion, and Arbogast(I think)...and the house IS homey. I think it is the time travel back to 1960 that now bathes the movie in warm nostalgia.
I've got at least a dozen films like that: watch-anytime "old reliables," and for whatever odd reason, most of them are "downer" films that present the darker sides of life rather than comedies or other so-called uplifting fare; Double Indemnity and Sunset Blvd; The Sweet Smell Of Success; Chinatown; Laura; Crossfire and other postwar "noirs;" the 1954 A Star Is Born; Cabaret; Network (although that one's pretty funny in its bitterly cynical way); any one of Val Lewton's economical, what-you-don't-see-is-scarier-than-what-you-do thrillers.
And a lotta Hitchcocks.
---
A lotta Hitchcocks. The sheer number of innocent people killed in a lot of his films make them downers...even though justice prevails. But they -- like Sunset Boulevard and Chinatown -- have a melancholy and rueful feeling about how life is...that is quite comforting in its own perverse way. We are TOUCHED by these films.
Just this past week, I watched a "lesser" movie with this kind of feeling: "Cutter's Way" from 1981(as the gritty 70's headed into Lucas/Spieberg territory.) Jeff Bridges(young, thin, tan and "hot"), John Heard(handsome, with long hair and an eyepatch like a pirate -- Vietnam lost him an arm and a leg, too, to complete the Long John Silver effect; and Lisa Eichhorn(in a devastating performance as the sad, boozy forlorn wife of Heard -- with an aching voice that will haunt you.) They play hardscrabble people living in ultra-rich Santa Barbara...which here becomes a kind of "Chinatown north" setting for a gruesome murder quite possibly committed by the most Rich and Powerful Man in Santa Barbara. Its a small scale movie, mainly tragic(though something rousing and tragically heroic happens at the end)...and I love it. Always have. Its a "warm downer," too. Maybe something about all that coastal SoCal sunshine.
"A lotta Hitchcocks. The sheer number of innocent people killed in a lot of his films make them downers...even though justice prevails. But they -- like Sunset Boulevard and Chinatown -- have a melancholy and rueful feeling about how life is...that is quite comforting in its own perverse way. We are TOUCHED by these films."
---
Not to mention dazzled by the cinematic craft with which they're presented. For me, more than anything, that's what makes them so endlessly re-watchable. I can't for example, say I feel touched by any of the characters in Laura or Sweet Smell Of Success, or their stories, but the incisive, intelligent and elegant writing are among the attributes that make people I wouldn't want to know in real life so fascinating to spend time with just the same.
---
"Just this past week, I watched a "lesser" movie with this kind of feeling: "Cutter's Way" from 1981(as the gritty 70's headed into Lucas/Spieberg territory.) ... Its a small scale movie, mainly tragic(though something rousing and tragically heroic happens at the end)...and I love it. Always have. Its a "warm downer," too. Maybe something about all that coastal SoCal sunshine."
---
That's one that's due for a revisit. I saw it at a pre-release screening under the title Cutter and Bone, and again after its release as Cutter's Way. Both times, it was one of those films I just couldn't find my way into. Yet it seemed apparent that the problem was mine, and that there was something worthwhile there that I was missing.
That's happened with a handful of films that took several tries to "get," but finally clicked upon the third or fourth viewing. John Huston's Beat the Devil, for instance, which I now find thoroughly charming since catching its hook.
Oddly, someone else recently mentioned Cutter's Way, so the time's probably right for another try.
Not to mention dazzled by the cinematic craft with which they're presented.
---
Yes..in the styles of multiple decades...the 40s, the 50s, the 60's, the 70s...many in black and white,others using color in different ways.
---
For me, more than anything, that's what makes them so endlessly re-watchable. I can't for example, say I feel touched by any of the characters in Laura or Sweet Smell Of Success,
---
Especially Sweet Smell of Success....it is from the "innocent" 50's and yet the Lancaster and Curtis characters are repellent to match anything today -- made watchable only by their star power, the story and the cinema. (Trivia: Ernest Lehman co-wrote the screenplay from his novella, and its NYC patter pulled Hitchcock towards using Lehman for NXNW...which STARTS in NYC, if with somewhat nicer characters?(uh, killers?)
---
--
or their stories, but the incisive, intelligent and elegant writing are among the attributes that make people I wouldn't want to know in real life so fascinating to spend time with just the same.
---
So many movies are about "people we wouldn't want to know in real life." And in this era, a bunch of TV shows feature the same folks: The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men...Ozark, Bloodline(and these are only the ones I've WATCHED.) The cable TV film-making is incisive, but doesn't quite have the style of earlier eras -- things are more "real."
That's one that's due for a revisit. I saw it at a pre-release screening under the title Cutter and Bone,
--
In some ways, a better title, but the studio thought that sounded like a movie about surgeons!
---
and again after its release as Cutter's Way. Both times, it was one of those films I just couldn't find my way into. Yet it seemed apparent that the problem was mine, and that there was something worthwhile there that I was missing.
---
Eh...there are a LOT of movies like this...I felt like posting on it because I recently watched it, and it brings back some REAL nostalgia(I was adult and cognizant in 1981 versus 1960) , but it appeals to me for its characters, its "smallness," its Santa Barbara setting(that city has gotten richer and richer and richer, but it always seemed more "regal" than LA blow it.)
The warning: its really SMALL. And truncated(a "sister" just disappears from the movie.) The best thing about it is Lisa Eichorn, whose work here got her a movie opposite Gene Hackman -- All Night Long -- only to lose the role(after she STARTED it) to...Barbra Streisand! (Somebody was married to Steisand's agent.) Ms. Eichhorn's career was short, but this movie is IT. Plus Jeff Bridges is cool as usual and John Heard got HIS great role (Dustin Hoffman almost played it -- eyepatch, fake leg, missing arm...)
The Long Goodbye was on streaming, too, and as somebody somewhere noted, if you combine The Long Goodbye and Cutter's Way you get...The Big Lebowski! All three... movies I like...and way the hell away from Hitchcock's kind of precision and set pieces and "bigness."
That's happened with a handful of films that took several tries to "get," but finally clicked upon the third or fourth viewing. John Huston's Beat the Devil, for instance, which I now find thoroughly charming since catching its hook.
---
As you may recall, I had movie savvy parents and boy did they love Beat the Devil. Talked about it all the time. They saw it when it came OUT. I could never get the love for it...but there's always another try.
---
Oddly, someone else recently mentioned Cutter's Way, so the time's probably right for another try.
---
Its small. Itty bitty. The opening credits are haunting(with weird music by Jack Nitschze, who also did Cuckoo's Nest.) That musical Cuckoo's Nest connection also comes in at the end, I think.
"Well, we know that I was not allowed to see that broadcast...but it affected me anyway. The story scarily told to me by other kids..and told MORE bloody."
---
When I remember that viewing, can't help but retroactively feel bad for you, now knowing there was some poor guy 'bout my age - whom I wouldn't encounter for like another 40-odd years - who was being denied what I was allowed...I imagine you had a lot of equally anonymous-at-the-time company. Still: only another 3 years until you caught up with it; another 5 and you were gazing upon a current Hitchcock set; one more and you were standing next to Pat while Dad himself arrived for the premiere of that set's film.
A message through time to adolescent ecarle: don't fret; your day's a-comin!
"Well, we know that I was not allowed to see that broadcast...but it affected me anyway. The story scarily told to me by other kids..and told MORE bloody."
---
When I remember that viewing, can't help but retroactively feel bad for you, now knowing there was some poor guy 'bout my age - whom I wouldn't encounter for like another 40-odd years - who was being denied what I was allowed...
--
Fate plays us different hands...and then seats us at a new table. Ah, THAT was ridiculous. Never mind. Hah.
---
I imagine you had a lot of equally anonymous-at-the-time company.
---
It was a big deal. Recall that one mother made the sign of the cross across her chest and forbid not only her kid, but ME from seeing it(like if I did, she'd find out.)
I hear "sneaking off to Psycho" was also a big deal in its 1960 theatrical release. It had no rating...kids could just walk in...IF their parents allowed it. If not, they could sneak off. I read an essay about kids who slipped out the window to make the trip to the theater.
I also read one story of two young girls who dressed up like their mothers(No, not THAT way) with make-up to sneak in. They came out with their make-up running from tears of screaming...
---
Still: only another 3 years until you caught up with it; another 5 and you were gazing upon a current Hitchcock set; one more and you were standing next to Pat while Dad himself arrived for the premiere of that set's film.
--
You remember well, doghouse. I repeat my stories for new audiences, but I know some of you just smile and skip 'em this time. And remember, when I gazed on that set, it was before entering his office to pass myself off as a college reporter. He wasn't there.
--
A message through time to adolescent ecarle: don't fret; your day's a-comin!
--
I'd take that time machine. Recall, back then, I never knew WHEN Psycho would come back on TV. It took a few years.
Now, its on everywhere, available all the time.
"...gone from something utterly sick and horrifying to something...comforting? Its from a much more innocent era, and its creepiness is oddly warm and inviting now; yes the murders are shocking and cruel, but the film has LIKEABLE characters in Norman, Marion, and Arbogast(I think)...and the house IS homey. I think it is the time travel back to 1960 that now bathes the movie in warm nostalgia."
---
Yuh, although I'd add that it's also familiarity, which may breed contempt (as that old cynic Chaucer said), but that ain't near all. I'll bet that, even with the recalled blow-by-blow descriptions by friends (and the Truffaut book) in your mind, there was still that element of the unexpected providing thrills. It's one thing to be told what it's like to skydive, for instance, but another to do it: "How will it look through MY eyes?" What will it sound like? How will it feel?"
And now, we've been in that house dozens of times over decades, know what's going to happen where, when and to whom, and perhaps just as significantly, how it was all done. It IS ironic, but completely logical as well. Being home has always been a source of comfort to me, wherever and whenever any of them happened to be. Their familiarity still comforts in memory, even though I'll never set foot in any of them again (and if I did, they'd no longer be comforting, because they're somebody else's, not mine). But you and I can and will re-enter that house again and again, and it'll be just as familiar (as will all the stuff that's not as homey).
Yuh, although I'd add that it's also familiarity, which may breed contempt (as that old cynic Chaucer said), but that ain't near all.
--
No contempt here. I do sometimes find myself AVOIDING a showing on TV just to keep it somewhat "at arm's length." Sadly, I've found that North by Northwest -- an equal favorite to Psycho in my youth -- tends to play just a bit dull these years...except for Rushmore, always exhilarating and romantic(yes, romantic -- how better to win a wife?)
---
I'll bet that, even with the recalled blow-by-blow descriptions by friends (and the Truffaut book) in your mind, there was still that element of the unexpected providing thrills. It's one thing to be told what it's like to skydive, for instance, but another to do it: "How will it look through MY eyes?" What will it sound like? How will it feel?"
--
Absolutely. Though the Truffaut book -- with the photos of the murders -- terrified me to the bone. Its one thing for Arbogast to go zipping down the stairs in seconds in the movie; its another to see his terrified, bloody face frozen on the page.
I've noted this before but I had two surprises when I saw the Arbogast death sequence the first time: (1) I had imagined it in DAYTIME. I have no idea why. When he headed up the hill in dusky darkness -- I realized that I was watching an entirely different movie than I'd imagined. (2) was rather the same: I imagined a piano and living room in the house to the right of the door(our POV.) Nope. We never see that far in Hitchcock's shots(El Cheapo.) But that living room and piano WERE in the sequels!
Somewhat less jarring, but indeed "how it FELT to experience the movie for real" -- the shower scene felt much too short and quick the first time. How could it NOT? I had a vague feeling of "wait...that's all?" In the years since on other viewings, it has "elongated" a time or two in my mind. Very odd.
And now, we've been in that house dozens of times over decades, know what's going to happen where, when and to whom, and perhaps just as significantly, how it was all done. It IS ironic, but completely logical as well. Being home has always been a source of comfort to me, wherever and whenever any of them happened to be. Their familiarity still comforts in memory, even though I'll never set foot in any of them again (and if I did, they'd no longer be comforting, because they're somebody else's, not mine). But you and I can and will re-enter that house again and again, and it'll be just as familiar (as will all the stuff that's not as homey).
---
When Arbogast walks up that hill to his doom, for all intents and purposes we are in a HORROR movie and we know he's going to a HORRIBLE place. And yet -- what did HE think about it? He probably found the house old, but he likely took it at face value -- as if it were Young Charlie's home in Shadow of a Doubt. He was maybe anticipating a verbal altercation with Norman, Mother or even Marion but...he had no idea what was coming.
By the time Lila walks up that hill, Hitchcock's travelling POV makes her pretty scared of it, but its still just a house when she opens that door and goes in.
And again..."El Cheapo Hitchcock." All he had built was a foyer, a staircase, Mother's room and Norman's room. No living room. Not ALL of the kitchen(just some of it.) There's a bathroom at the top of the stairs, but Hitchcock only references it in his trailer(and all he does is open a door to ...nothing.)
But then there's that fruit cellar...and the room in between....
"Heh. Doghouse. Always with a welcome post -- if more intermittant these days, alas. It is our loss."
---
Hi, ol' buddy! That's awfully nice of you to say, and apologies for being so remote lately (and for the lateness of these replies). Just going through a period in which I haven't had much to contribute even while checking in regularly to keep tabs on you, "co-anchor" swanstep and "the regulars." But like Blaney's proverbial bad penny, I'll always turn up sooner or later.
---
"I'm not sure, but I still think Psycho has enough great lines and great structure(Hitch and Stefano IMPROVING upon Bloch)...that the screenplay DID get snubbed."
---
Hitchcock gave "shockers" respectability, no? I've always had a mental block where Oscar knowledge is concerned. Even when following them every year from nomination to b'cast, I forgot who did/didn't get what by the day after. For instance: The Haunting; Rosemary's Baby?" Nominated? Snubbed? (Okay, I do remember Ruth Gordon; that's unforgettable. "I can't tell ya how encouragin' a thing like this is...").
---
"Eh...we've all heard those people ..and we've all BEEN those people. Its fun sometimes."
---
And sometimes we can't blame it on booze or weed. In the mid-'80s, a coworker and I went to an AMPAS tribute to Judy Garland, at which people like Mickey Rooney and Gene Kelly offered their reminiscences, and when Kelly said, "Judy was a performer who gave something to everyone she worked with, but she knew how to take something from them, too," Kevin and I whispered the same thought to each other: "Benzedrine, Seconal..." and then could not get hold of ourselves until the intermission. And when the lights came up, we were mortified to see that Sid Luft was sitting directly behind us (he growled his disapproval as we walked past: "Sons of bitches!").
I still cringe at the memory, but still laugh too. Maybe some have a part of us that never grows up.
"Heh. Doghouse. Always with a welcome post -- if more intermittant these days, alas. It is our loss."
---
Hi, ol' buddy! That's awfully nice of you to say, and apologies for being so remote lately (and for the lateness of these replies). Just going through a period in which I haven't had much to contribute even while checking in regularly to keep tabs on you, "co-anchor" swanstep and "the regulars." But like Blaney's proverbial bad penny, I'll always turn up sooner or later.
---
I almost count on it...and I like all the co-anchors around here.
But I never push for it!
I just keep on lighting the lights and following the formalities...
"I'm not sure, but I still think Psycho has enough great lines and great structure(Hitch and Stefano IMPROVING upon Bloch)...that the screenplay DID get snubbed."
---
Hitchcock gave "shockers" respectability, no?
--
Oh, yeah. He said once(a bit ruefully): "I've made some good movies from very mediocre material." Its possible he felt that Bloch's Psycho was such...but he was wrong. His American films from Rebecca through Vertigo -- perhaps one or two of the source stories may have been mediocre, but actually I think he was always hungry for GOOD material -- Strangers on a Train, Rear Window(the short story), The Trouble With Harry, the book that made Vertigo.
Hitch also evidently benefitted from the fact that many other directors and stars would not DO thrillers. Noirs, maybe. Private eye movies occasionally. But not full fledged thrillers.
And yet, once NXNW and Psycho hit big -- the 60's was rife with them: Experiment in Terror, Cape Fear, The Manchurian Candidate, The Prize, Charade, Mirage, Arabesque, Blindfold, Wait Until Dark, Rosemary's Baby...
---
I've always had a mental block where Oscar knowledge is concerned. Even when following them every year from nomination to b'cast, I forgot who did/didn't get what by the day after. For instance: The Haunting; Rosemary's Baby?" Nominated? Snubbed? (Okay, I do remember Ruth Gordon; that's unforgettable. "I can't tell ya how encouragin' a thing like this is...").
---
I'm not sure that Rosemary's Baby did much better in nominations than Psycho(except for Gordon.) I DO believe that came the 70s , The Exorcist and Jaws got Best Picture noms and Screenplay noms -- and The Exorcist won.(Spielberg did NOT get a Best Director nom for Jaws! Two years later, he got one for Close Encounters, but the movie was NOT nominated for Best Picture.)
Its worth a quick look.
And this, in 1976: the now dead Bernard Herrmann gets nominated for two scores: Obsession and Taxi Driver -- and Jerry Goldsmith wins for the spooky "Omen." (Goldsmith said he was so sure Herrmann would win something, he didn't even prepare a speech.)
But then Benny never get any more respect at the Oscars than Hitch.. Bastards.
"Eh...we've all heard those people ..and we've all BEEN those people. Its fun sometimes."
---
And sometimes we can't blame it on booze or weed. In the mid-'80s, a coworker and I went to an AMPAS tribute to Judy Garland, at which people like Mickey Rooney and Gene Kelly offered their reminiscences, and when Kelly said, "Judy was a performer who gave something to everyone she worked with, but she knew how to take something from them, too," Kevin and I whispered the same thought to each other: "Benzedrine, Seconal..." and then could not get hold of ourselves until the intermission. And when the lights came up, we were mortified to see that Sid Luft was sitting directly behind us (he growled his disapproval as we walked past: "Sons of bitches!").
--
I'm laughing over here. That's a big oops with Luft...but he had a bad rep anyway.
I have an anecdote about the funeral of a friend's father. About five solemn young men sat side by side to honor our friend's father, suited up, "serious." The priest blew out a candle and it exploded and left his face blackened and his hair on end -- and it looked just like a Bugs Bunny cartoon when something blows up in Elmer Fudd's face. Miraculously the priest wasn't hurt, just "stained" with black powder on his face.(NOT blackface.) And we...could...not...stop laughing. Five guys, each one triggering the next.
--
Embarrassing. But true.
I still cringe at the memory, but still laugh too. Maybe some have a part of us that never grows up
--
See above. Goodbye for now...
"I have an anecdote about the funeral of a friend's father. About five solemn young men sat side by side to honor our friend's father, suited up, "serious." The priest blew out a candle and it exploded and left his face blackened and his hair on end -- and it looked just like a Bugs Bunny cartoon when something blows up in Elmer Fudd's face. Miraculously the priest wasn't hurt, just "stained" with black powder on his face.(NOT blackface.) And we...could...not...stop laughing. Five guys, each one triggering the next."
---
I'm still laughing two days later at the image it conjures.
And I learned something too: I never knew candles could explode! (I sometimes wonder if I've led a sheltered life.) But my curiosity led me to an article that goes quite extensively into all the chemically reactive whys and wherefores, so thanks for some new knowledge along with the laughs (not to mention the embarrassment empathy).
The only movie I ever watched drunk was "Shampoo". My girlfriend and I made out the whole time in the back row of the theater. I still don't know what that movie was about.
shareThere really isn't a drinking scene in the movie. I'll watch a movie with a drink and drink when the main character drinks. I hate to drink alone.
shareThe only movie I ever watched drunk was "Shampoo". My girlfriend and I made out the whole time in the back row of the theater. I still don't know what that movie was about.
--
One of the best uses of movie theaters -- and especially drive-in movie theaters -- known to man. Or woman.
I had a whole passel of movies that I had to go see again because the first time -- lust trumped movie love.
And for the record: I can only recall seeing two movies drunk. One was Lethal Weapon 2. The main issue was: it seemed like the movie was over in ten minutes.
Opening credits. The End. Lights up. I turn to my friends: "What happened? Was that a ten minute movie?"
And I was told that I had not slept during the movie at all. I just watched the film in a stupor.
The other "drunk" movie was, I think, Mission to Mars. Same deal. Seemed really short. I never saw it again -- Lethal Weapon 2, I did.
I was not/am not a drunk by habit. With those movies, I "went with the guys," knew i wasn't driving, lost track of my drinking, ended up in a movie theater only vaguely aware of how I got there.
I guess that makes it more funny than tragic. I hope so.