Oliver, Stoned.

just watched this on Amazon prime, because I'm running out of things to watch. I would say this is a Seth Rogan film if it wasn't for the fact he ain't in it. This is no compliment, if your a Seth rogan fan then you'll probably think it's OK. The characters are so one dimensional they could be served with paper cut outs The acting has been criticised, I honestly don't think the actors or their acting was too bad, it's a weak film and as the saying goes you can't polish a t**d. The storyline has the typical "sethroganesq" stoner screw up guy, who keeps failing at all things in pursuit of weed, a disappointed dad who not only appears to be only ten years his senior for the nearly thirty something stoner living life as though he's 17 (hence the repeating Seth rogan references (did I say that I don't think Seth rogan should be allowed in front of a still camera never mind a movie camera) I got about an hour into the film when I found myself making use of the skip 10 seconds facility that Amazon provides, then I asked myself why I was wasting my valuable 4am time of insomnia on this when there's a bathroom floor I could be scrubbing or ironing that could be done...anything that would mean I don't have to waste my life on this film. That said I pity the actors and crew that probably wasted a lot more than one hour making this drainage. So, to end, I recommend the writer or final script editors that put this together as a script go back to Taco Bell and start wiping down the tables where they belong. Please send a cheque to compensate me for my time. It is in the interest of humanity I have bothered to take further time to write this review...may the Lord have mercy on your souls. Avoid this film, and avoid any film the writers make...note to self make a mental note of their names, wait don't risk forgetting...get a tattoo Jazz Kalkot and Tom Moris...you...you are to blame...don't go trying to pin it on the actors.

"Oliver, Stoned." has some good elements. Some of the supporting cast are quirky, amusing and much better developed than the lead, including the father, the weed dealer, the bum, the ex-boyfriend and the kid on the bicycle who periodically breaks the fourth wall. Some of the dialogue is quite clever. The science film parody about marijuana is amusing. Some scenes have unexpected twists, such as the heavy who is distracted by concerns over disturbing his baby's nap and the elderly lady who drives a classic muscle car and makes amorous advances. The movie also capitalizes on unexpected relationships that actually make sense.

Some devices misfire, such as the clown and episodes of emisis, but at least they tried.

The film invites comparisons with "Dude, Where's My Car?" but seems wanting. DWMC had the advantages of a $13MM budget that was clearly exponentially larger, a writer with extensive credits for "South Park," and a cast of up and coming actors, including Ashton Krutcher, Seann William Scott and Jennifer Garner. There are some areas where the OS filmmakers couldn't hope to compete with DWMC, but there are other areas where they could have put in a little more effort without exhausting their resources.

In DWMC, things not only go bad, but problems escalate. In OS, problems arise and often fizzle out or prove to be less severe than expected. At one point, Oliver needs to borrow an item that is in a room where people are engaged in an activity they don't want him to witness. But the door is unlocked, so he sneaks in and takes it. There is an unexpected aspect to what he wasn't supposed to witness and he is seen leaving, but he borrows what he wanted with no significant adverse consequences. The scene could have presented many complications and repercussions. There were opportunities for burlesque, slapstick, mistaken identity and other comic devices that could have made the scene much more interesting, like the pizza on the ceiling in DWMC, but they weren't developed. At one point, Oliver "borrows" a vehicle. Having seen "Risky Business," "Con Air," "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and dozens of other films, we expect the vehicle to be totally trashed, contain something vitally important to some nasty characters or result in other problems and complications. Instead, the owner thanks him.

With the failure to compound problems, the dark night of the soul, in Snyder's terms, where all seems lost, seems more like early twilight. The girl has stormed off for reasons related to where he is, not who he is. The stakes haven't increased by much. We're not all in. It doesn't feel life-or-death, now-or-never.

Too much occurs off-screen. A car is stolen off-screen, which adds an element of mystery as to the identity of the thief, but robs the scene of opportunities to show Oliver complicating matters and causing or facilitating the theft. The climatic showdown is also largely off-screen.

Usually in this type of fool triumphant (another Snyder term) film, the straight girl is beyond the comic hero's reach, as in "Get Smart" or "Johnny English." She's far more capable, centered, intelligent and successful. Here the love interest seems within reach and is too easily captured.

Oliver's only objective, besides getting stoned, is to get back what was stolen from him. In DWMC, Jesse and Chester had other objectives relating to gifts for their girlfriends and helping clean their apartment. Later there were subplots about missing money and aliens and some sort of strange cosmic device. When Oliver buys food, he just buys it. Chester and Jesse engage in a long exchange with the speaker at a drive-through restaurant. When J&C get stoned, they do weird and funny things. Oliver puts his brain in park and zones out. There is one long undercranked sequence where he really doesn't do much (and certainly nothing to advance the plot). In the morning, we find things got a little more interesting, but it happened off-screen.

I think it was Michael Shurtleff who wrote that playwrights make their characters drunk for one reason only, to imbue them with honesty. Being drunk on screen should not be about stumbling about, slurred speech, frequent urination or nausea. It should be about tearing away inhibitions so the characters can say what they really feel without filtering their sentiments through a sieve of political correctness and social norms. Being stoned on screen should not be about zoning out or behaving foolishly. It should be about whimsical and nonsensical notions that suddenly make sense in some ironic manner or something. I'm not a stoner. Perhaps I don't know what it should be about. Having watched the movie, one has the impression the writers don't really know either.

I thought I would give 'Oliver, Stoned' a chance despite the bad reviews because they can often be misleading. On this occasion, however, 4.2 is about right. Whilst not as bad as I feared, it's certainly a downgrade on just about any comedy I've seen of late.

I'd be interested to know the target audience of this film, who exactly they thought was going to like this. The humour is so dumb it would only appeal to someone with an extremely low IQ. The film isn't particularly badly made, it's just not funny.

A predictably poor comedy movie with very few laughs. Ordinarily, I would say disappointing, but my expectations were already low going it to it.

I really liked this movie for several very specific reasons:

1. I am from the area where this main character lives, and it is seriously so on point. I could name you at least 45 dudes personally that live like this. It's a niche SoCal bro specific very much so to the 805. Represent!

2. I like that the filmography is actually filmed in Oxnard, where the movie is based.

3. It doesn't try to be something it isn't. Classic dumb stoner movie. I've seen way worse made for way more so I'm not mad at it.

I would have given this a lower rating, but I've actually seen far worse. Poorly written flat characterizations, wooden and sorry acting. Not one laugh out loud moment. Watch this only if you have nothing else left to do.