Chantal

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?

Do not miss Tony Marsiglia's stunning remake which features an utterly superb central performance from Misty Mundae as the innocent, wide-eyed titular character who dreams of becoming a movie star. However, she soon finds that far from being laced with tinsel, Hollywood is loaded with manipulative predators all too eager to lend a helping hand.

In some ways, this is Marsiglia's most straightforward film in terms of storytelling. There's none of the confusing narrative that characterized his previous release, Sinful, or the more dreamlike sequences in the excellent Lust for Dracula (Director's Cut). However, there are one or two moments of weirdness. For example, having been turned away from her first port of call, Chantal decides to lower her sights and enters the bowels of a decrepit hotel presided over by the creepy Pablo (Tony Marsiglia). On finding that she doesn't have enough money for a room even in this hell-hole, Pablo offers her a deal: he'll keep her suitcase and belongings with him, but he'll allow her to take two items with her. "Not the pink ones," he rasps excitedly like an obscene phone caller in imminent danger of a heart attack.

There are fine performances from the supporting cast. Darian Caine as an aggressive lesbian photographer gives perhaps her best performance to date with Marsiglia favorite, Andrea Davis, as her co-defiler. They subject the witless Chantal to their forceful attentions in a powerful scene that is harrowing to watch. Julian Wells also turns in a fine performance. Here, she plays an actress wannabe who's already been put through the wringer and is now reduced to turning tricks on the street.

Also present on the DVD are a behind the scenes featurette and an interesting audio commentary from Marsiglia and producer, Michael Raso. However, the icing on the cake is a fascinating, separate audio commentary from Tony Marsiglia and Misty Mundae. Aside from the business of 'Chantal', Misty speaks about her decision to stop making softcore films. She admits with refreshing honesty that since making Masters of Horror: Lucky McKee - Sick Girl, offers of acting work that she's been willing to undertake have not been numerous.

'Chantal', for me is a ten star film, but the extra features give this package a twenty star rating. Misty Mundae fans should consider it a must-have.

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.

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.

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.