| "All she ever wanted to be in life, was just a Hollywood Star" |
| |||||
Chantal
2 DVDS/APPROX. 240 MINS/1969 - 2007/USA UNRATED
2 DVDS/APPROX. 240 MINS/1969 - 2007/USA UNRATED
6.5
| All written material is © from 2006 to Present at DVD Resurrections. This website is for informational and entertainment purposes only. The opinions which are expressed within these pages are solely those of DVD Resurrections. No copyright infringement is intended or implied. |
| ||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oh. A re-make of a crap film starring Misty Mundae? Yeah, like I’m hanging out for it. A tale of a girl who goes to the bad side to do well; a small
town prig who thinks she’s bound for Hollywood becomes a slut; that’s what this film is talking about. Yeah, like I’ve never seen that before, and in
superior way – Valley of the Dolls, anyone?. And I have to sit through two versions of the same film? Who’s a lucky boy? Mr Intolerance is. Or
isn’t, as the case may be.
The basic story of both films is the same. Whether the Grindhouse original from ‘69 or Mundae-revamp from ‘07, both tales tell the story of Chantal,
a starry-eyed self-deceiving youngster who comes to the big smoke to become an actress, but ends up living a sordid life of sex, bordering on (if
not crossing the line into) prostitution.
Can you spell crackle and grain?! The original version of this film begins so speckled it’s like a piece of wholemeal bread. It does rapidly get better
as the film progresses, however. Say for example when the rather mannish actor portraying Chantal goes for a stroll past Grauman’s Chinese
theatre and tries putting her feet into the shoes of various Golden Age of Hollywood stars. Chantal as a potential star? Oh no, that fairy tale ain’t
gonna happen…
And her constant voice-overs? Annoying doesn’t even begin to sum that up. It just makes you hate the character more because of what she says,
when it doesn’t just make you laugh at how ludicrously prim and prissy she is. After she opens her face-hole, we stop even sympathising with her
because she’s so holier than thou. And considering she’s become little better than a prostitute, that’s a little hard to bear…
Basically the original version of the film is nearly impossible to deal with because it’s deeply boring. Seriously, it’s very, very dull. I love 60s
sexploitation films (Russ Meyer is a favourite director of mine, as is Radley Metzger), but this really has nothing. Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. I mean, in
this day and age, the whole concept of a young starlet going to Hollywood and becoming a slut is not exactly a new one.
And as for the new version? Well, like I said, Misty Mundae is a fuck’s sight better looking than the original Chantal, and her story is a damn sight
more interesting, not to mention more bleak. Same basic tale: Chantal is a young chick from outta town who turns up expecting to be the next big
thing. Of course, no-one’s listening or even cares. She’s little better than just more tinsel trash on Hollywood Boulevarde. The fact that her first
sight once off the bus from Hicksville is guy getting a blow-job from a hooker in a back alley should tell her what kind of town she’s rocked up to
“And then I can talk?” Chantal ends up dancing for couple of sleazy dudes who want her to model “fashion swimwear”, which she seems to think
will lead to an audition. It doesn’t – it leads to Chantal being degraded, humiliated and raped at a photography studio.
There’s actually quite a bit of lesbian-sex if you’re into that kind of thing, but if you’re reading this website, you’re probably already into that kind of
thing. As a matter of fact, it might well be your sorting screen for films, after the inclusion of zombies. Although I must say, the whole “go-to-
Hollywood-and-lose-your-innocence” thing has been done many, many times before – albeit not with so many titties.
Chantal has well and truly lost her innocence after her photo session, despite the fact that she tries desperately to retain it, shown through
wanting to calling her mother, but the allure of fame is still too strong. There’s quite a bit of moral preaching in the last act of the film, but given the
fact that Chantal hasn’t gone back to where she came from, and still makes dubious assertions about acting, and clings desperately to even the
most remote possibility of fame, you can’t really take her seriously. And her hooker friend Traci (Julian Wells) doesn’t. The message is strong: don’t
go to Hollywood unless you’re ready to suck cock or otherwise prostitute yourself. It’s a straight up and down flick in that way.
That said, this film tries very hard to preach serious moral issues, BUT it does it in such an exploitative manner that it becomes easy to ignore. The
re-make is better than the original, and the leading actor in the re-make is easier to sympathise with, but generally, the one word that sums this
film up is “meh.”
Misty Mundae has since decided to stop doing skin-flicks and start doing “serious” acting (yeah, like “Sick Girl” and “Splatter Beach”). I think that
she may have made a mistake. Basically she is a really hot chick with pretty limited acting talent. Misty may wish to re-consider before committing
to being Erin Brown. Maybe she’ll get better with age. But, that said, her reasons given on one of the commentary tracks are pretty cogent, and
she’s extremely candid about it.
Extras: Loads of them, if you want to watch them. There are all kinds of commentaries on both versions; with Nick Philips on the original flick, and
with director Tony Marsiglia and another with Misty Mundae (really elucidating stuff…), on the remake, if you’re interested. There’s also a making of,
as well as the camera test for the re-make. In terms of the original, there’s an interview with the director, the bonus Philips featurette: “These Girls
Are Fools”, and a trailer vault for Nick Philips’ other films, as well as ones for some of Misty’s other films (Sinful and Screaming Dead). And there’s
also a trailer vault for Daddy Darling, Confessions of a Young American Housewife, The Sexperts and The Sexploiters There’s also a 10 page
booklet detailing the history of Chantal, if you’re into the films. That’s obviously somebody showing a lot of love for something that may not be
deserving of it.
town prig who thinks she’s bound for Hollywood becomes a slut; that’s what this film is talking about. Yeah, like I’ve never seen that before, and in
superior way – Valley of the Dolls, anyone?. And I have to sit through two versions of the same film? Who’s a lucky boy? Mr Intolerance is. Or
isn’t, as the case may be.
The basic story of both films is the same. Whether the Grindhouse original from ‘69 or Mundae-revamp from ‘07, both tales tell the story of Chantal,
a starry-eyed self-deceiving youngster who comes to the big smoke to become an actress, but ends up living a sordid life of sex, bordering on (if
not crossing the line into) prostitution.
Can you spell crackle and grain?! The original version of this film begins so speckled it’s like a piece of wholemeal bread. It does rapidly get better
as the film progresses, however. Say for example when the rather mannish actor portraying Chantal goes for a stroll past Grauman’s Chinese
theatre and tries putting her feet into the shoes of various Golden Age of Hollywood stars. Chantal as a potential star? Oh no, that fairy tale ain’t
gonna happen…
And her constant voice-overs? Annoying doesn’t even begin to sum that up. It just makes you hate the character more because of what she says,
when it doesn’t just make you laugh at how ludicrously prim and prissy she is. After she opens her face-hole, we stop even sympathising with her
because she’s so holier than thou. And considering she’s become little better than a prostitute, that’s a little hard to bear…
Basically the original version of the film is nearly impossible to deal with because it’s deeply boring. Seriously, it’s very, very dull. I love 60s
sexploitation films (Russ Meyer is a favourite director of mine, as is Radley Metzger), but this really has nothing. Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. I mean, in
this day and age, the whole concept of a young starlet going to Hollywood and becoming a slut is not exactly a new one.
And as for the new version? Well, like I said, Misty Mundae is a fuck’s sight better looking than the original Chantal, and her story is a damn sight
more interesting, not to mention more bleak. Same basic tale: Chantal is a young chick from outta town who turns up expecting to be the next big
thing. Of course, no-one’s listening or even cares. She’s little better than just more tinsel trash on Hollywood Boulevarde. The fact that her first
sight once off the bus from Hicksville is guy getting a blow-job from a hooker in a back alley should tell her what kind of town she’s rocked up to
“And then I can talk?” Chantal ends up dancing for couple of sleazy dudes who want her to model “fashion swimwear”, which she seems to think
will lead to an audition. It doesn’t – it leads to Chantal being degraded, humiliated and raped at a photography studio.
There’s actually quite a bit of lesbian-sex if you’re into that kind of thing, but if you’re reading this website, you’re probably already into that kind of
thing. As a matter of fact, it might well be your sorting screen for films, after the inclusion of zombies. Although I must say, the whole “go-to-
Hollywood-and-lose-your-innocence” thing has been done many, many times before – albeit not with so many titties.
Chantal has well and truly lost her innocence after her photo session, despite the fact that she tries desperately to retain it, shown through
wanting to calling her mother, but the allure of fame is still too strong. There’s quite a bit of moral preaching in the last act of the film, but given the
fact that Chantal hasn’t gone back to where she came from, and still makes dubious assertions about acting, and clings desperately to even the
most remote possibility of fame, you can’t really take her seriously. And her hooker friend Traci (Julian Wells) doesn’t. The message is strong: don’t
go to Hollywood unless you’re ready to suck cock or otherwise prostitute yourself. It’s a straight up and down flick in that way.
That said, this film tries very hard to preach serious moral issues, BUT it does it in such an exploitative manner that it becomes easy to ignore. The
re-make is better than the original, and the leading actor in the re-make is easier to sympathise with, but generally, the one word that sums this
film up is “meh.”
Misty Mundae has since decided to stop doing skin-flicks and start doing “serious” acting (yeah, like “Sick Girl” and “Splatter Beach”). I think that
she may have made a mistake. Basically she is a really hot chick with pretty limited acting talent. Misty may wish to re-consider before committing
to being Erin Brown. Maybe she’ll get better with age. But, that said, her reasons given on one of the commentary tracks are pretty cogent, and
she’s extremely candid about it.
Extras: Loads of them, if you want to watch them. There are all kinds of commentaries on both versions; with Nick Philips on the original flick, and
with director Tony Marsiglia and another with Misty Mundae (really elucidating stuff…), on the remake, if you’re interested. There’s also a making of,
as well as the camera test for the re-make. In terms of the original, there’s an interview with the director, the bonus Philips featurette: “These Girls
Are Fools”, and a trailer vault for Nick Philips’ other films, as well as ones for some of Misty’s other films (Sinful and Screaming Dead). And there’s
also a trailer vault for Daddy Darling, Confessions of a Young American Housewife, The Sexperts and The Sexploiters There’s also a 10 page
booklet detailing the history of Chantal, if you’re into the films. That’s obviously somebody showing a lot of love for something that may not be
deserving of it.
| BUY DVD @ AMAZON.COM |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Search Review Database: |