Chantal (2007 Video) User Reviews

Misty Mundae was great in this Soft-core pron's attempt to be legit.

[subxerogravity · 5/10 · 11 July 2015]

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.

Compassion, anyone?

[unbrokenmetal · 5/10 · 3 February 2008]

"Chantal" tells the story of a young, naive girl who comes to Hollywood as she, like many others, wants to become a star. Within a few days, her illusions are shattered as she gets to know the other side of the coin: exploitation instead of glamor. "Chantal" is a movie with ambitious intentions and some stylistic courage, but it makes one crucial mistake. In the beginning, you hear Chantal bragging so much about how great she is, how famous she will be and how quickly the world will be at her feet that you can't help thinking: "Oh Lord, I wish somebody would teach little stupid here a lesson in common sense and modesty." Thus, when we are watching her downfall later on, we are not very concerned. There's a kind of "serves her right" feeling instead of compassion. Because the audience doesn't sympathize with Chantal, the movie loses some effect. Compare this to Jess Franco's "Justine", for example, where Romina Power as Justine is much more lovable when she has to face humiliation. "Chantal" has good performances by Misty Mundae, Julian Wells and the one and only Julie Strain, and surely a few nasty moments you don't forget easily. It's a pity it nevertheless leaves the audience somewhat indifferent.

Nobody is that naive

[aaronjwyckoff · 3/10 · 11 November 2017]

Chantal is not a horrible movie, but it fails on several levels. First and foremost, I cannot believe anyone could possibly be as naive as Chantal manages to be. Yes, I can certainly see her being unprepared for a lot of what is thrown at her, but expecting to get a room for a week at a good hotel for four dollars? Seriously? Not even a hundred years ago. Her naivety is way overplayed to the point where it's impossible to take any of the movie seriously. Frankly, she comes across as entirely unlikable to the point where you almost root for reality to smack her around a bit.

Add to that every cliché you can think of for a Hollywood lowlife all acting in the most despicable manner possible. The only interesting character in the whole movie is Pablo just because he actually has memorable personal quirks.

Chantal's downward spiral runs too quickly as well. She goes from refusal to acceptance far too easily again and again. Over a period of a couple months? Yes. Over a week? Not likely.

If you want to see a few brief scenes of nudity, I guess this movie is okay, though it doesn't even do much there compared to many others. If you're looking for an overplayed story of an unbelievably innocent young girl being swallowed up by Hollywood, you might enjoy it, but otherwise, don't waste your time.

A soft porn film trying badly to be a movie...AWFUL!

[jojoluv24 · 1/10 · 6 July 2009]

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.

Could have been better...

[welambert01 · 5/10 · 22 June 2023]

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.

Done for fun not for awards.

[wesomniman1 · 31 March 2023]

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.

Please DON'T Make Anymore Movies Like This

[fiji5555 · 2/10 · 5 July 2008]

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?

Ummmmm, what?

[richleamington · 1/10 · 18 November 2023]

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.

Why bother?

[martyrittenhouse · 1/10 · 27 September 2023]

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.

You get what you pay for.

[louisvillaescusa-1 · 10/10 · 5 March 2023]

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.

Was a good lil film

[darkoneskip · 7/10 · 10 March 2019]

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

Stunning Hollywood expose

[dogkat · 10/10 · 25 January 2008]

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.