Sorry, this movie sucks

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A man called Hoover requests Lucky (Stella Stevens) and her girls work a party and steal money from the manager he keeps in a drawer. The floor plan looks like refrigerator art. That is pretty much the film except for a slight twist. Stella Stevens boast some major cleavage. It is an okay film that is available on multi-packs, not that great to buy as a single, unless you are some major league collector.

In a wild west park, Lucky (Stella Stevens) meets a mysterious man where she's given a plan to steal $500k in Las Vegas. Lucky and two friends showgirl Carol and trapeze artist Lisa try to rob the sadistic manager of Circus Circus Casino Eversull who is also secretly an illegal gun dealer. Lucky's boyfriend Victor is 5 months from retiring as a security officer at the casino. Carol is in debt to the thug A.C. who suspects she's making a run for it. Lisa is suffering from bouts of vertigo.Stella Stevens is not necessarily a bad actress but the other two are pretty close. The heist isn't that impressive and it takes way too long to get there. The production is poor although somebody hanging outside of the casino is fun. The movie oscillates between functional to badly made.

With a title like "Las Vegas Lady", and being released by Crown International Pictures, one might understandably think that this movie is some kind of sleazefest. But surprisingly it's far from that. For one thing, the movie barely warrants a PG rating, with some very brief nudity and a couple of harsh words. Plus, the movie aims to be a caper movie. Nothing wrong with that aim - caper movies can be fun - but the execution of this caper movie is almost totally botched. The first half of the movie is almost totally made of low energy scenes that seem to serve no purpose except to pad out the movie. Viewers will get really impatient quick. And when the caper is executed, there is absolutely no tension and no energy. There is a "twist" in the final few minutes of the movie, but it's a twist that you'll guess in the movie's first ten minutes! On the positive side, there is actual filming on Las Vegas and surrounding Nevada locations, which helps the look of the movie. Also, Stella Stevens and Stuart Whitman have welcome presence, and generate some chemistry in their (limited) scenes together. But this positive material won't prevent you from falling asleep long before the end credits start rolling.

There's really not a lot to say about Las Vegas Lady. It's harmless enough, but it is little more than a dull heist film from the 70s. The movie is neither as clever nor as sexy as it strives to be. The plot is a retread of the tired old casino robbery storyline that's been done to death. Except in the case of Las Vegas Lady, I think the robbery plot was designed by a 3 year-old. The plan involves three women – one to unnecessarily and in plain view scale the outside of the Circus Cicus building, one to pose as a waitress only to blow her cover at the first opportunity, and one to stand around exposing her cleavage. That's pretty much it. Intricate, huh? Other than Stella Stevens and her aforementioned breasts, the other women involved in the plot aren't particularly memorable. Las Vegas Lady co-stars Stuart Whitman. When not pawing Stevens, his involvement in the movie is highlighted by one of the most idiotic gun fights ever put on film.I really wanted to like this movie. It does have that 70s feel to it that I always enjoy and some nice shots of Las Vegas circa 1975. But the movie itself is too dull to rate any higher than a 4/10 – and that's probably overstating it. In the end, Las Vegas Lady is a waste of some perfectly good cleavage.