Must See Movie...

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

GIRL IN TROUBLE is another cheap 'sensation' quickie with much in common with the genre of films being made in the 1930s usually concerning innocent young women falling into the dark world of vice. In the middle of the 1960s, the genre was about to get a whole lot rougher and more explicit, but these early 1960s efforts feel like tame throwbacks to an earlier age.Sadly, this one in particular is devoid of interest and intent, simply shooting in a variety of locations while failing to tell much in the way of a story. It's immediately obvious that the film was shot silently with narration added afterwards, which doesn't really work all that well. The main character - played by non-actress Tammy Clarke - decides that she's had enough of small town life, so she decides to head off to the big city to seek fame and fortune. Big mistake.En route, Clarke grapples with various small time villains, such as would-be rapists and various men seeking to exploit her for her body. She winds up working as a stripper at a sleazy bar, but there's a twist ending of sorts. Unfortunately this ending is a big cop out and renders the whole thing a waste of time, and there's zero else here of interest to boot.

Exploitation films were meant to titillate and push the boundaries of good taste. Because of this, the older ones are terribly entertaining, as their stories about good boys and girls gone bad are downright hilarious because they are anything but subtle. Bad acting, bad direction and terrible stories are pretty much the norm and bad movie fans enjoy the heck out of these flicks. However, when it comes to bad taste and crappy stories, "Girl in Trouble" is a bit lacking--as it's amazingly slow and tame for this genre. So, if you are looking crazy over the top scenes like you'd see in "Sex Madness" or "Reefer Madness", you might be a bit disappointed.When the film begins, it appears as if the film was shot using either a Super 8mm or 16mm camera--and a cheap one at that. It shows an ambulance crew taking away a woman to the hospital and then she begins narrating--doing a voice over description of her lurid tale from start to finish. It seems that she was a nice girl from farm country but longed for the excitement of the big city. En route to finding her fortune in New Orleans, our sweetheart kills a man in self-defense, is spied upon by an evil lecher and ultimately becomes a stripper and addict.The film is cheap. The actors are all inexperienced and it shows. The soundtrack is very generic and doesn't really fit the action. The story throws breast shots into the story for no particular reason (typical for 1960s exploitation movies) and the overall production comes off as creepy and dull--a strange combination! For exploitation fans, there's enough to keep them mildly interested but no more. For everyone else, it's a slow, dull piece that probably doesn't offer enough to merit your time.

This quickie exploitation pic tries too hard to be legit and tell the story of a small town girl trying to bust into the big city. As a look at USA circa 1963, it's interesting, but as an exploitation pic, it's a bore. Too little story too coy in the telling make this one of the few genuinely boring Something Weird Video releases. The opening makes the claim that it is a true story; and, as dull as it is, that's very believable. The strippers don't even strip.To its credit, the leading lady is a genuinely good actress, whose narration, while used too much, is quite well done. She's also very good looking (if you don't mind a bouffant) and gets topless a few times, but it goes nowhere.Poor Judy runs away from home and quickly gets pawed by a motorist and spied on by a hotel manager. The descent into decadence that follows is painfully slow and prudish. The real 1960s had to swing a lot more than this. Judy claims to be pretty smart, but she's shocked that a man who has requested a girl to model lingerie in his hotel room would try to have sex with her.Poor, dull Johnny walks the streets in hopes of finding her, and eventually does, with moralistic disappointment. On the other hand, I loved the character of Mona. She was like the Bad Advice Fairy. You say a man tried to rape you? Hey, why not become a stripper?

Judy Collins escapes from her home town--she's in love with local boy Johnny but doesn't want to marry him--yet. On the way to New Orleans she kills a man who tries to assault her. She gets there, tries to get a job and MORE men assault her. She finally ends up a stripper and one day Johnny walks into the club...This was given the 1963 equivalent of an X rating--no child under 16 was allowed in the theatre. Today it would be given a soft R mostly for some casual nudity. This seems to want to be taken seriously but the pointless nude shots and a violent rape make it clear what this really is--an exploitation picture. For that it's pretty well-made--well-directed and shot. The voice over narration is OK (if overdone) but the badly post-synced dialogue is obvious. Also pretty badly acted--only the one playing Mona showed any talent.If you're into early 60s exploitation you might like this. Otherwise, stay away.