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.

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.

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.

I liked thoa one and as always Erin Brown was good ,pretty good indie flick.