Chantal is a hot, naive and dangerously delusional young woman, wandering the boulevards of L.A. looking for her first big break. There she meets Tracy who warns of the harsh realities lurki... Read allChantal is a hot, naive and dangerously delusional young woman, wandering the boulevards of L.A. looking for her first big break. There she meets Tracy who warns of the harsh realities lurking beyond the glamorous facade of Hollywood.Chantal is a hot, naive and dangerously delusional young woman, wandering the boulevards of L.A. looking for her first big break. There she meets Tracy who warns of the harsh realities lurking beyond the glamorous facade of Hollywood.
Erin Brown
- Chantal
- (as Misty Mundae)
Wayne Edward Sherwood
- John - sleazy casting director
- (as Wayne Sherwood)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaShot in five days.
- ConnectionsRemake of Chantal (1968)
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $60,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content