Sign up to add this to your collection
|
Sign up to add this to your favorites
|
|
44%
Overall Rating
|
|
Ranked #14,690
...out of 20,725 movies
|
Sign up to check in!
|
A young woman moves to Hollywood to find fame and fails badly.
--TMDb
|
Review by Chad
Added: October 4, 2007
"Hollywood is really a phony place, and if I should ever come here again, the first thing I'll do is spit on a sidewalk."
A movie that would have inspired actresses worldwide to travel to Hollywood for a chance at becoming the next Marilyn Monroe? Hardly; Nick Millard's version of Chantal is basically his version of Reefer Madness, only in this film, "Hollywood" is the "reefer" that young adults should be avoiding like the plague. Oh, and there's also a lot of boobies and softcore action thrown in to spice things up as well.
The storyline revolves around Chantal (played by an actress whose true identity is now a mystery - seriously), a young woman who has traveled to Hollywood from her home state of Michigan with dreams of making it big. What she finds is that people like her are easy prey for just about everyone in this town, and that the people here won't think twice about making false promises just to get into her pants. Then... well, that's really the extent of the plot, as after three "strikes" in the city, she packs her shit and goes home before the credits roll.
It's obvious that our good pal Nick Millard (director of the infamous Crazy Fat Ethel) wanted to convey a message here, but really, there wasn't enough meat behind the message in question to sustain a feature length film, even when said film only ran for a little under an hour. Sure, it's also presenting us with some softcore material to pad out the time, but Nick... well, Nick may be known for his work in the sleaze business, but based on the films that I've seen, his work there just doesn't do anything for me. I enjoy the cheesy horror section of his filmography, but these softcore offerings are just downright bad.
Sticking to the film at hand and ignoring his rather large number of similar films, the reason that this one fails is simple: even the actual softcore scenes are padded out, much more than what one normally finds in films of this nature. Take, for example, the final scene in which Chantal watches two ladies dance in front of the camera wearing nothing more than skimpy lingerie, an act which causes her to realize that that is her destiny if she doesn't get out of this town. That's good for a couple of minutes of running time, maybe five or six, right? Wrong - here, it runs for at least fifteen minutes (I didn't count, but it sure felt like that), and all we see are the two ladies "wiggling about" and not doing much of anything else. No lesbian action, no variety, nothing: just two ladies wiggling. The same can be said about the other two softcore scenes, and trust me when I say that it had me reaching for the remote more than once. I would just chalk this up to the differences in the times, but other filmmakers were doing these softcore films back then with much more entertaining results.
Overall, I'd tell you fine readers to avoid this one, but it's included as a bonus feature on the upcoming Seduction Cinema release of Chantal (the remake, starring Misty Mundae). I've yet to see that one (expect a review soon though), but if that one is even half as good as it appears to be, it'll be worth the price of the two-disc set by itself. As for the original, well... it's only a bonus feature, that's about the best thing that I can say about it. 2/10.
|
|
Rate Movie? 
