Chantal

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 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.

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.

What the heck is the point of this? If you want to watch adult content, watch adult content. If you want to watch an entertaining, well written and acted film then watch something else. This waste of time mash up of both doesn't meet either criteria.

I'm not sure if it's trying to be clever or funny. It's funny in a limited number of places but as I'm not sure its supposed to be who knows if that's a good thing. It certainly isn't clever.

It's incredibly badly written and acted and it's filmed in a weird washed out colour that is probably supposed to look cool and Indie but just looks like it was filmed on the cheap in the 1970s.

This is what happens when someone with delusions of grandeur are given a few dollars to waste on a film. The money would have been better used by people who have a clue what they are doing and haven't got the minds of a twisted 12 year old boy.