Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

Leofwine_draca 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.

Michael_Elliott Girl in Trouble (1963) * (out of 4) Judy Collins (Tammy Clarke) is just a small town girl who has dreams of heading into the big city and making it big. On the way to her dream Judy hitches a ride where the man eventually tries to rape her, which leads her to killing him. From here things only get worse for Judy as she falls in with a bunch of perverts.GIRL IN TROUBLE is the type of exploitation film you'd expect from this era. The film was shot silent and we have the typical awful narration that gets us from one scene to the next. Once again I must say that I feel really bad for people of this era who had to sit through movies like this one in hopes of getting some sort of nudity.There are all sorts of problems with this one including the fact that there's about fifteen minutes worth of "story" here and it's pushed out to 81 minutes. The film is a real drag from start to finish, although there are some campy moments that get some laughs. The performances are all pretty bland as you'd expect and there's just nothing entertaining here. Even worse is the fact that scenes just drag on without much of a point.

MartinHafer 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.

preppy-3 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.