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.

The film starts so much like Candy Goes to Hollywood I wonder if at least the opening scenes were an homage. But this is not an especially sexy film. Sure there is plenty of nudity. And Misty Mundae is something very special indeed. She has a natural beauty and innocence to her that makes me homesick for the old days. Nowadays most times you see a female heroine, particularly in an adult film, she seems like has had sex with millions of men, her body is covered with tattoos and she talks like a gangster. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I like actresses who look and act like Misty Mundae (in this movie at least).

I don't know what the story is with the hotel clerk. He talks like he has emphysema. I guess he is supposed to sound scary but I imagine it was hard for anyone to keep a straight face while filming his scenes.

Again this is not at all like Candy Goes to Hollywood. I wish it was. The story of the ingenue who is taken advantage of and corrupted is not politically correct nor does it instill good morals in a person, but it is sexy, or at least it is to a gen xer. I think twenty-first century people are no longer interested in such things. No instead of a sexy tale of some airhead getting fooled into doing sexy things this is more a tale of a foolish girl's descent into degradation and madness. It is not fun.

Mind you like I said Misty is a lovely girl and I will certainly seek out some of her other films. Maybe she has made some films that are a little more cheerful and fun.

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.