Chantal

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.

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?

Typical girl next door comes to Hollywood to be a star. I have a soft spot for these types of movie.

There is always something that set them apart from one another. You have the impression, a little tweak here and there, this movie could be so much better. The movie attempt to show the gritty, seamy and hedonistic side of the Hollywood falls short. The plot and pacing drags. The bright spot: I did find myself caring about the lead actress Misty Mundae/Erin Brown. To watch her progress as an actress from soft core to B movie is fascinating. I believe is the principle cause for the restraint in the movie. A bigger budget and the commitment to being more gritty; a much better picture. A Misty Mundae fan? You might find it interesting.

Obviously the comment posted that says it's a masterpiece has to be written by the director or writer of this movie. None of the actors can actually act as they are probably all porn actors, and lets face it no actors from the porn industry can actually act. There isn't even good sex in this movie to pass as a decent soft core porno flick. Do not be misguided by the ONE good review as this is the worst movie ever written. The characters are annoying, confused ,creepy and humourless. The actor who plays the hotel owner has to be the most aggravating character I have ever witnessed. Please avoid this movie at all costs, watch paint dry as it is more entertaining.

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.