Las azafatas

I must confes than I am a big fan of Monica Gayle, who although does not appear in the credits, has a phenomenal scene where sit sits naked and meditates and stretches her nude body every which way but loose. That scene lasts 30 seconds. The rest of the movie isn't much. Lots of pretty girls with a minimal amount of nudity, but not much in the way of plot. The film ends with Monica Gayle addressing the plane over the P.A. system. Watch her introduce the stewardesses and, amazingly, forget her name as well as the name of one of her co-stars. Incredible that they didn't re-shoot it, but that's low budget films for you.

Well, after a few years of reading about this 3-D soft-core porn film, I finally watched this on two places online. The first place I saw this abruptly ended after an hour and 3 min.-right in the middle of a lesbian love scene. So I managed to watch the rest on a porn site. Pluses-that lesbian scene as well as a lovemaking scene between a uniformed army man and a woman with delicious close-ups of her face reacting. Minuses-one scene of a woman doing it with a face bust on a lamp stand, complete with silhouette of her pleasuring herself and the ending "love" scene with the woman not enjoying it and resulting in a tragic ending. So that's my review of The Stewardesses. Oh, and the version I watched was not in 3-D which is just as well because, other than some scenes at a haunted house in an amusement park not to mention on a roller coaster, it wouldn't be thrilling to watch in that format...

This film essentially revolves around seven or eight stewardesses who have an extended layover in Los Angeles and decide to have some fun. Since there are a number of various subplots within this movie I have decided to list them for the sake of clarity. First, "Samantha" (Christina Hart) happens to meet an advertising executive named "Colin Winthrop" (Ronald South) and because she desperately wants to be an actress eagerly goes out on a date with him. What she doesn't know is that Colin has a hidden secret that he has been nursing for several years and it's going to change their relationship rather dramatically. Meanwhile, "Cathy" (Kathy Ferrick) and "Jo Peters" (Anita de Moulin) go to a club to unwind but eventually head back to Jo's apartment. "Wendy" (Janet Waas), on the other hand, seems to have a thing for men in uniform as she first cavorts with a sailor in bed at the start of the movie and then afterward spends some time with a soldier who has orders to return to Vietnam. Yet another stewardess named "Annie" (Donna Stanley) decides to go home and drop some acid instead. Last, but not least, "Tina" (Paula Erikson) manages to get invited over to a playboy pilot's home which results in "Cindy" (Beth Shields) being left all alone. There is also another stewardess who apparently cheats on her boyfriend but I don't believe her name is mentioned. Now, as I stated earlier, there are quite a number of scenes involving different people and because there is no real character development-or much of a plot for that matter-it's quite easy to get confused on exactly who is doing what. This is the primary weakness of this movie. Throw in an extremely limited budget and awful background music and it's not difficult to understand why this movie has historically been rated so low. Rather surprisingly however, all of the actresses were quite attractive (with Kathy Ferrick being the best of the bunch in my opinion) which certainly helped this film immensely. Additionally, from what I understand there were a couple of promotional gimmicks and revisions done to this movie which dramatically enhanced the bottom line well beyond its actual merits. Of course none of the gimmicks can make this movie any better than it actually is and because of that I have rated this movie accordingly. Slightly below average.

I saw this in the theater in its 3D version when it was originally released in 1969. It stunk to high heaven then and it can't be any better now. Scenes of a woman being brutalized in the bedroom and then jumping out a window hardly fit into a movie described as a comedy-drama. Nudity for no other purpose than titillation does not a movie make. The 3D effects were not all that good and did nothing at all to add to the enjoyment of the film. It has been 35 years since I saw this movie and I still think of it as the worst film I have ever viewed in a theater. My companions and I asked for our money back but were refused. Other vignettes within this "movie" included the story of a man who was traumatized by an act of sodomy. Cheery stuff, eh?

The movie chain I worked for when I was a freshman in college had booked this film, and because of state and local laws regarding the showing of X rated films, none of the employees under 18 could work at the theatre during the run of this picture, so the chain "imported" a bunch of us who worked at other theaters to work this film. The ONLY reason for anyone to see it was because it was (I believe) the first porn film shot in 3D. Even by 1969 standards of porn, this film was a real disappointment. The only thing that could possibly have made it worth watching was the sex, and it was simply a bad soft core porn film anyway. Some people have commented about how good the 3D was -- but it wasn't. Since you had to wear the polarized glasses, the screen was quite dark. I don't think if the film had been released without the 3D it would have interested anyone at all. It's an interesting artifact in the history of rise of the porn industry, but that's about it.