Souls in Pawn (1940) Poster

(1940)

User Reviews

Review this title
1 Review
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Fun Exploitation Film with Some Skin
Michael_Elliott27 September 2017
Souls in Pawn (1940)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Entertaining exploitation drama about a married woman (Beatrice Curtis) who finds herself pregnant by a man who has their marriage annulled. Now facing a baby she can't raise she turns to a maternity house who agrees to take the child in until she is in a better place. The only problem is that the owner is a thief and soon sells the baby to a burlesque dancer (Ginger Britton) who wouldn't be able to adopt at any other place.

SOULS IN PAWN comes from director Melville Shyer who was an expert at this exploitation genre. Not only did he direct films like THE ROAD TO RUIN, MAD YOUTH and CONFESSIONS OF A VICE BARON but he also worked as an assistant director on various Universal films including FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, SON OF Dracula and SHERLOCK HOLMES FACES DEATH. If you're looking for an old exploitation picture then this here is a pretty good one as it actually delivers some naughty bits with its story.

As far as the story goes, it's a fairly decent one, although there's no question this here wasn't the main thing that was being sold to the public. The story of the mother who does everything right by getting married and then having a kid was a good start as these films are usually about good girls doing the wrong thing. The mix-up here actually worked and the story of the dancer was also a good one. What makes this film work as an exploitation film comes towards the end when there several scenes with the dancers. The woman are wearing see-through bras and at other times they are wearing just pasties so I'm sure men in 1940 were loving this.

As far as the performances go, they are rather forgettable, although I did think Curtis and Britton were at least good enough for this type of movie. Lets face it, these type of roles weren't trying to bring home Oscars. The film was actually well-shot and for the most part I'd argue it was well-made for what it was. A lot of the exploitation films from this era are rather tame but this one here at least delivered the audience what they paid to see.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed