Search - Stash on DVD

The Boys of '86 vs. Stash

Mark Eremite | Seoul, South Korea | 05/29/2009

(1 out of 5 stars)

"When I was about eight or nine, some friends and I were having a slumber party when we discovered a camcorder that belonged the adults of the house. High on Reese's Pieces and A&W Root Beer, we decided to make a movie about a madman named Dr. Demento who was trying to take over the world. After blowing up a power plant (which was a shampoo bottle with toilet paper tube smoke stacks), Dr. Demento was finally thwarted by Michael Jordan, who was only our protagonist because our host owned a life-sized cardboard standie of the basketball player.



It was a horrible film with horrible special effects and horrible acting. None of us could stop laughing long enough for a single take, and the Jordan standie kept falling over. Also, for some reason, two of the scenes devolved into music videos of us dancing like lunatics. We watched it over and over again, loving every minute of it.



I was reminded of my only foray into filmmaking by STASH, a movie that reeks of homemade silliness and laughable acting. Even though I found myself repelled by the film, I also had to nod at the energy and drive that must've existed in order to get this thing on celluloid and out into the market.



Here's the story: two lowlifes break into their pot dealer's home with the intent to steal his stash. The pot dealer, a loud fellow named Bud (hyuck, hyuck!), catches them and punishes them by demanding from them three girls in three days. Off they go to abduct women and deliver them to the lecherous Bud. So, how does it compare to my eight year old offering?



ACTING: Most of the people in the film try to act, but don't do a much better job than our Michael Jordan cutout. The mothers of the abducted girls are either mindlessly hysterical or vacant and distracted. Bud seems to have a crippling mental disorder, because he forces out a big, fake laugh after every single one of his lines.



CONTINUITY: My film was certainly worse on this score. Still, this movie has quite a few gaping plot holes, in addition to some artsy-fartsy nonsense that is mainly an excuse to film girls running through the woods naked.



SPECIAL EFFECTS: I think this is a tie. Bud's vile behavior is hinted at, but when we seem him with the girls, he doesn't appear to do much other than blindly grope at them, roll around on them with his boxers on, and take Polaroid photos which he then sits around staring at. At one point, one of the girls dies and Bud goes about disposing of the body. How does he do this? He wraps the body in a trash bag and then drags the remnants of a pine tree over it. That's it. Not quite as bad as having a shampoo bottle represent a power plant, but about as sensible.



PLOT: Okay, now here I've got STASH beat. Our movie may have been incomprehensible and silly, but in every single scene there was action. This movie is filled with long, pointless dialogue about the missing girls, interrogations that go nowhere, Bud laughing and laughing and laughing, and the two lowlife thieves smoking weed. Very, very little happens in this film. If you're going to bother making such a sleazy, low-rent movie, at the very least keep the pace up. People don't watch sleazy, low-rent movies for the dialogue, after all. And I oughta know.



Me and my friends churned out our film on a sugar rush and two hours of galavanting about. I'm not sure what these filmmakers were on when they made STASH, but I suggest they try a different substance next time."

Worst movie ever

T. Radzik | 04/05/2009

(1 out of 5 stars)

"Do not waste your money. This movie was horrible. Bad acting. Bad story line. Absolutely horrible. I wouldn't sell this to anyone for a penny."