Chantal

Mundae's portrayal of Chantal, a sweet innocent girl from a small town trying to become a movie star in Hollywood hits all the right clichés.

In fact the whole movie fit all the stereotypes of how Hollywood eats young girls like Chantal up and spits them out.

But a little different than the soft-core porn Mundae became infamous for, this tale has some enduring moments but I think it rides the line of erotic drama and pornographic parody too strong.

It was a good way for Mundae to show she's more than "visual material" for those "many lonely nights", but the movie itself is a little too dark for that "activity", unless you're really into the ideal of a bright eyed innocent, spiraling down a dark path that gets very surreal as it goes.

Definitely something for real deal Mundane fans but I would stick with the movies that Julie Strain starred in rather than this one which she made a cameo in.

Good effort but takes what it is too seriously.

This was worse than awful.........the acting was horrible, the characters to ridiculous to even be close to being real, and the plot was crap. Sounds like I didn't like this much huh? It would be a miracle if anyone did. I have seen some crap movies before but this one has to near the heap of the s**t pile. If Chantal had been as silly as portrayed in the movie then she wouldn't have even been able to find her way to Hollywood. This is seriously a laughable joke of a "movie". What were the people who made this thinking?........and the actors?......Good God did they even pay attention to the script and their lines? Surely they saw what a load of fermented crap they were acting in? Hmmmmm they were probably told it was artistic and the end result would make them famous.........ha ha ha maybe they are all Chantals?

I watched the "Tubi cut" of this junk. Apparently most of the sex and a lot of the nudity was removed from this version. This leaves exactly nothing of value or interest. Really, given the lack of talent in direction, cinematography and screen writing, coupled with the abysmal cast, we really can't be missing much.

The actors are horrible. The dialog is laughable and the whole thing is shot in closeups, apparently with a hand held Betamax camera.

This intended to be soft core entertainment. If that's what you are looking for, there are myriad better options. Don't waste your time. You can easily do WAY better.

I really liked this movie. It's a remake of the 1968 Chantal and, like most art house films, it's a bit rough. Was it Citizen Kane? No. Was it a fun distraction? Yes. Was I in it? Yes. Did I have fun making it? Yes. This movie is a gem of an era that has passed us by. It was actually shot on film and I doubt that we'll ever see many more movies that are actually shot on film. I was involved on two shoots. The first was somewhere in Hollywood. I can't remember where but it was my outdoor scene outside an old, abandoned ballroom. The second location was at a place called Glaxo studios, which was a burned out building in downtown LA. (They're not there anymore.) Seriously, the entire upper floor of the "studio" had been burned out but we still filmed up there. The lower level was a nightclub set and I spent most of my time there. And I take umbrage with the previous reviewer. I have a degree in theater and have awards for my acting. I'm not Olivier, but I'm damn good! Just ask Lana Wood. But Trolls gotta Troll.

As an actor in the film, l did it for fun, not to win an award for acting. Also the director was a friend, which was another fun reason I did it.

Like the commenter above, I have a degree in Theatre which they don't give unless you can do the work. Plus, not to forget to mention, I am also friends with the commenter and had fun working with him.

The budget on this film was less than what most people earn yearly, and as a result you're lucky to get a movie as well done as this one was on it's budget.

Judge it for what it was done for, not on what other films are done for.

Besides, as previously mentioned, I had fun working on it.