The producers of this film seem not to have decided what they really wanted to do - a documentary? some social comment about prostitution? a drama about how a young student is almost driven into prostitution? a soft porn movie? The result is a mix of all those, without really being any of them. Denise Richards and Daryl Hannah seem very little at ease with their very thin acts inter-threaded with what seem to be interviews with real practicants of the older profession and porn actors and directors. The social comment is not consequent, sometimes forgiving, sometimes harsh, and in any case it does not say anything new about the subject that was or is said in any TV documentary. It is hard to say why they did this film, and who would be really interested in it.
27 Reviews
Weird and Pointless Exploration of the Underworld of Sex
claudio_carvalho6 July 2007
A writer is interviewing prostitutes, porn stars and gigolos for her latest book. Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the scholarship of the student of PHD of anthropology Rebecca (Denise Richards) finishes and she has financial problem to keep her apartment. Her neighbor and call-girl Adrianna (Daryl Hannah) introduces her to prostitution.
"Yo Puta" is a weird and pointless movie that explores the underworld of sex through interviews. In 1991, the sexy Theresa Russell filmed the good Ken Russell's "Whore" talking to the camera in a pseudo-documentary style, and the result was an original movie. Unfortunately "Yo Puta" wastes interesting information in a dull screenplay. I have recently watched "Lilja 4-Ever", "Anjos do Sol" and "Human Trafficking", and all these movies are related to the contemporary slavery of the traffic of women. "In Yo Puta", this subject is approached and lost in the shallow screenplay. The story of Rebecca and Adrianna is awful and ridiculous. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "Garotas de Programa" ("Call-Girls")
"Yo Puta" is a weird and pointless movie that explores the underworld of sex through interviews. In 1991, the sexy Theresa Russell filmed the good Ken Russell's "Whore" talking to the camera in a pseudo-documentary style, and the result was an original movie. Unfortunately "Yo Puta" wastes interesting information in a dull screenplay. I have recently watched "Lilja 4-Ever", "Anjos do Sol" and "Human Trafficking", and all these movies are related to the contemporary slavery of the traffic of women. "In Yo Puta", this subject is approached and lost in the shallow screenplay. The story of Rebecca and Adrianna is awful and ridiculous. My vote is four.
Title (Brazil): "Garotas de Programa" ("Call-Girls")
Interviews
jotix10013 May 2006
Maria Lidon is given credit for directing this documentary. It's funny because in the credits someone by the name of Luna appears to be its director, and frankly, we were under the impression that Spanish director, Bigas Luna, a man that loves to shock his audience, was the actual man directing.
What makes a woman turn into prostitution? The obvious answers would be poverty, desperation, sexual abuse, and having been deceived. But the writers of the documentary take the approach to the way some of these women have ended working in the world's oldest profession because the allure of the money that can be made, or just because they honestly like the idea of selling sex for a living. There are only a couple of males that talk frankly about the way they sell their bodies.
"The Life" might be deceiving for the casual viewer since in the credits we see some familiar names like Daryl Hannah, Denise Richards and Joaquim de Almeida, but their presence in the film is merely decorative. After seeing and listening to all the women interviewed speak openly about how they view their chosen 'career', these actors seem to be in the wrong picture.
Other than being curious about what "The Life" is about, nothing new is learned from the people being interviewed.
What makes a woman turn into prostitution? The obvious answers would be poverty, desperation, sexual abuse, and having been deceived. But the writers of the documentary take the approach to the way some of these women have ended working in the world's oldest profession because the allure of the money that can be made, or just because they honestly like the idea of selling sex for a living. There are only a couple of males that talk frankly about the way they sell their bodies.
"The Life" might be deceiving for the casual viewer since in the credits we see some familiar names like Daryl Hannah, Denise Richards and Joaquim de Almeida, but their presence in the film is merely decorative. After seeing and listening to all the women interviewed speak openly about how they view their chosen 'career', these actors seem to be in the wrong picture.
Other than being curious about what "The Life" is about, nothing new is learned from the people being interviewed.
Doesn't quite engage
je_voyager9 August 2004
Yo Puta is interesting in the sense that it uses the documentary format (it's not a documentary - it just looks like one). Interspersed with various interviews of whores is a lame storyline populated by Daryl Hannah and Denise Richard's characters.
Yo Puta is probably most enlightening to people who have no idea of the difference between a streetwalker and a private escort, or a gigolo and a whore. Thematically, it offers a clichéd view of the world's oldest profession, and offers nothing new to the audience.
There is no emotional engagement with the purported whores. And their stripped-in backgrounds (mostly hotel rooms or other cheesy places) is distracting to say the least. Denise Richards and Daryl Hannah do little to save the anemic movie, mostly because their script is almost non-descript, predictable and totally lacks any concept of tension.
You won't miss a thing if you skip this movie. Actually, almost anything you do will be a better use of your time.
Yo Puta is probably most enlightening to people who have no idea of the difference between a streetwalker and a private escort, or a gigolo and a whore. Thematically, it offers a clichéd view of the world's oldest profession, and offers nothing new to the audience.
There is no emotional engagement with the purported whores. And their stripped-in backgrounds (mostly hotel rooms or other cheesy places) is distracting to say the least. Denise Richards and Daryl Hannah do little to save the anemic movie, mostly because their script is almost non-descript, predictable and totally lacks any concept of tension.
You won't miss a thing if you skip this movie. Actually, almost anything you do will be a better use of your time.
Unwatchable boring mess
zimka22 November 2004
Many things could be said about this film - misleading, clichéd, style over substance, but in the end the most important aspect plays the decisive role: this film is boring.
The authors decided to present the film as a pseudo-documentary, but instead the viewer is subjected to seeing poorly acted commentary dialogue about prostitution over and over again. Maybe that would be interesting if the commentary itself had at least a spark of originality, alas... Person after person, every participant in this unwatchable boring mess says nothing but stereotypical b.s. It is almost as if the filmmakers made their product for someone from Mars - someone who has never seen or even heard of a prostitute in their entire life!
Oh, there is also Denise Richards in this movie. Yes. We all know that Denise Richards adds credibility to any movie! Seriously though, Richards and Daryl Hannah are in this film, but why they are here is anyone's guess. Their scenes could be easily taken out - they are not important. Well, in fact, the whole film is not important - just skip it altogether and watch something else.
The authors decided to present the film as a pseudo-documentary, but instead the viewer is subjected to seeing poorly acted commentary dialogue about prostitution over and over again. Maybe that would be interesting if the commentary itself had at least a spark of originality, alas... Person after person, every participant in this unwatchable boring mess says nothing but stereotypical b.s. It is almost as if the filmmakers made their product for someone from Mars - someone who has never seen or even heard of a prostitute in their entire life!
Oh, there is also Denise Richards in this movie. Yes. We all know that Denise Richards adds credibility to any movie! Seriously though, Richards and Daryl Hannah are in this film, but why they are here is anyone's guess. Their scenes could be easily taken out - they are not important. Well, in fact, the whole film is not important - just skip it altogether and watch something else.
Not so bad it is good... just plain boring
mentalcritic29 July 2005
MRA Entertainment, the distributor responsible for selling Yo Puta (or simply Whore as it is known here) on DVD, build a strong case for false advertising here. As opposed to the rather charming cover picture that appears on the IMDb entry, the Region 4 PAL DVD cover features both Daryl Hannah and Denise Richards so prominently that one could be forgiven for thinking they are the stars of the show. Although they are the biggest names in the film, their performances are little more than bookmarks for interviews. That these interviewees are so repugnant both in verbiage and physicality undermines the whole film. Just as we are getting interested in what the paid actors are doing, the film cuts away to interviews with actual putas who mostly only succeed in making the profession seem as repulsive as I am sure many feel it is. I am indifferent, having had no personal experience with it of any kind, but this film did not convert me either way because it comes off more as a student film. One that would get some very well-earned bad marks.
The plot that drives what little non-archival footage there is revolves around Richards' character, a mid-twenties student in anthropology. She needs money to pay the bills, and has a neighbour who works in prostitution. Having no other means to get herself out of the financial quagmire (this much I could relate to), she eventually tries prostitution. That is literally all there is to the plot, and it is stretched out over so much archival footage of prostitutes talking about their work that the main plot feels more like filler. There is one piece of archival footage that looks like the sort of thing one gets from one of those websites I will not mention here. You know the kind, the sort that have themes revolving around common attributes of models. Most of them offer free samples, so you can see what good there is in Yo Puta on said sites without paying for a rental.
Which brings me to my advice to both Hannah and Richards. Fire your agents, and do so now. Hannah already knows being a has-been, and while her appearance in films I will not glorify by mentioning here gave her a bit of a kick-start, she seems anxious to go back. At least judging by her appearance here. Richards' career has utterly tanked, and after seeing The Third Wheel, I cannot keep a straight face while calling this unjust. Joaquim de Almeida has little more than an extended cameo, portraying a rich customer. And these three actors basically make up the sum total of the legitimate actors in the film, unless you count the extras. Since three actors whose careers are, let us just say, in a lull does not a rounded, dynamic cast make. As previously mentioned, the interview cast do a lot less than pick up the slack. Given that a film about an illegitimate trade that brings many social problems needs a sympathetic focus at the best of times, this is very bad.
I would make statements about the cinematography, but since it mostly consists of one person standing before the camera and speaking, there really aren't any opportunities to be creative in this department. We could have done without the footage of one prostitute on a toilet with an obviously blue-screened backdrop, to say the least. This amplifies the ugliness of the subject three-fold, which is the last thing this particular individual needs. The music is by turns irritating or simply indifferent. But the real kicker is that two people are credited with writing this piece of crap. Sure, there is dialogue here, but no human being in their right mind should own up to having written it. I have never heard of the editor who is credited with working on Yo Puta, but two possibilities occur to me regarding the way it was cut together. Either this editor gave up after reel upon reel of barely cohesive footage, in which case it is the directors fault, or he simply cut the footage together in such a manner as to give it no transition, as a sort of practical joke.
I gave Yo Puta a two out of ten. Like Baise Moi, it tries to make a claim to being extreme. It gives nothing to back this claim up with, and thus winds up little more than a limp noodle. I would not even recommend seeing it for free.
The plot that drives what little non-archival footage there is revolves around Richards' character, a mid-twenties student in anthropology. She needs money to pay the bills, and has a neighbour who works in prostitution. Having no other means to get herself out of the financial quagmire (this much I could relate to), she eventually tries prostitution. That is literally all there is to the plot, and it is stretched out over so much archival footage of prostitutes talking about their work that the main plot feels more like filler. There is one piece of archival footage that looks like the sort of thing one gets from one of those websites I will not mention here. You know the kind, the sort that have themes revolving around common attributes of models. Most of them offer free samples, so you can see what good there is in Yo Puta on said sites without paying for a rental.
Which brings me to my advice to both Hannah and Richards. Fire your agents, and do so now. Hannah already knows being a has-been, and while her appearance in films I will not glorify by mentioning here gave her a bit of a kick-start, she seems anxious to go back. At least judging by her appearance here. Richards' career has utterly tanked, and after seeing The Third Wheel, I cannot keep a straight face while calling this unjust. Joaquim de Almeida has little more than an extended cameo, portraying a rich customer. And these three actors basically make up the sum total of the legitimate actors in the film, unless you count the extras. Since three actors whose careers are, let us just say, in a lull does not a rounded, dynamic cast make. As previously mentioned, the interview cast do a lot less than pick up the slack. Given that a film about an illegitimate trade that brings many social problems needs a sympathetic focus at the best of times, this is very bad.
I would make statements about the cinematography, but since it mostly consists of one person standing before the camera and speaking, there really aren't any opportunities to be creative in this department. We could have done without the footage of one prostitute on a toilet with an obviously blue-screened backdrop, to say the least. This amplifies the ugliness of the subject three-fold, which is the last thing this particular individual needs. The music is by turns irritating or simply indifferent. But the real kicker is that two people are credited with writing this piece of crap. Sure, there is dialogue here, but no human being in their right mind should own up to having written it. I have never heard of the editor who is credited with working on Yo Puta, but two possibilities occur to me regarding the way it was cut together. Either this editor gave up after reel upon reel of barely cohesive footage, in which case it is the directors fault, or he simply cut the footage together in such a manner as to give it no transition, as a sort of practical joke.
I gave Yo Puta a two out of ten. Like Baise Moi, it tries to make a claim to being extreme. It gives nothing to back this claim up with, and thus winds up little more than a limp noodle. I would not even recommend seeing it for free.
What is this?
Boba_Fett11385 February 2007
Still not sure what it exactly was that I just watched here. This is a strange mix of documentary and a scripted plot, featuring both actors and real prostitutes.
Exactly what does the movie try to achieve? What is its message? Does it just try to give us a view into the world of porn and prostitution? If so, than what is the point of it, since this movie shows and tells very little new or interesting. It's filled with interviews that just becomes too much of the same after a while. Even though the movie is only 87 minutes short, it feels much longer.
The movie feels like a rather weird and failed experiment to mixes documentary with a scripted story and characters. The movie is made in documentary style mostly but the style, scripted situations and actors makes the whole movie feel rather artificial. A weird and failed fusion of fact and fiction.
Especially the style was a problem to me. Fast, pointless cuts but the weirdest thing to watch, was that the backgrounds, during the interviews, were all obviously added later to the movie. The movie tries to be style full and beautiful but it just isn't. It instead is fake looking and for most part the style seems pointless and overdone.
Also a big problem is, that the movie just isn't interesting to watch. The movie doesn't say or show anything new or refreshing and even those who are interested in the subject will find very little to enjoy in this movie. It makes the movie very tiresome and boring to watch, already after the a couple of minutes.
The 'plotline' featuring Denise Richards and Daryl Hannah is like the entire movie; pointless and boring. Amazing to see that two professional actors lend their talents for such a production. Joaquim de Almeida also shows up in the movie. I'll bet they all thought they were making something refreshing and revolutionary here...
Avoid. That's the best and most sensible thing I can say about this movie.
3/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Exactly what does the movie try to achieve? What is its message? Does it just try to give us a view into the world of porn and prostitution? If so, than what is the point of it, since this movie shows and tells very little new or interesting. It's filled with interviews that just becomes too much of the same after a while. Even though the movie is only 87 minutes short, it feels much longer.
The movie feels like a rather weird and failed experiment to mixes documentary with a scripted story and characters. The movie is made in documentary style mostly but the style, scripted situations and actors makes the whole movie feel rather artificial. A weird and failed fusion of fact and fiction.
Especially the style was a problem to me. Fast, pointless cuts but the weirdest thing to watch, was that the backgrounds, during the interviews, were all obviously added later to the movie. The movie tries to be style full and beautiful but it just isn't. It instead is fake looking and for most part the style seems pointless and overdone.
Also a big problem is, that the movie just isn't interesting to watch. The movie doesn't say or show anything new or refreshing and even those who are interested in the subject will find very little to enjoy in this movie. It makes the movie very tiresome and boring to watch, already after the a couple of minutes.
The 'plotline' featuring Denise Richards and Daryl Hannah is like the entire movie; pointless and boring. Amazing to see that two professional actors lend their talents for such a production. Joaquim de Almeida also shows up in the movie. I'll bet they all thought they were making something refreshing and revolutionary here...
Avoid. That's the best and most sensible thing I can say about this movie.
3/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Pointless and Boring
jferreira9321 May 2016
A pointless movie about the world of prostitution, even though all we see are prostitutes and gigolos being interviewed for 90 min or so, without much interest, without showing something new, there also a story in the middle involving Daryl Hannah, Denise Richards, and Joaquim de Almeida's characters, that doesn't make much sense either. A very very boring movie, the mix between documentary and fiction didn't really work and also the dubbed dialog gives this picture a very cheap look. Why? I mean if this is supposed to be a movie featuring real people talking about their lives why dubbing it? some "actors" are dubbed and some others are not, it just felt weird. Also, the cinematography is poor.
I didn't understand what the director intended to do, but she failed at doing a good movie. My vote is 3
Title (Portugal)- Not available
I didn't understand what the director intended to do, but she failed at doing a good movie. My vote is 3
Title (Portugal)- Not available
Not top notch, but a should see....
shav1 November 2005
Many of the previous comments were close-minded. I haven't seen this film in several months, but it's ingrained in my mind. "The Life" was not about supporting prostitution, but more about the reasons/situations that lead to and exist, in such a "profession" world-wide. The element of documentary and fiction was a different take on the subject. If the fictional part of the story was just as candid and raw as the documentary portion, then the film would've been better. The subtitles were somewhat distracting due to speed. But overall, the film accomplished it's task. The theme holds, "Prostitution shouldn't be glorified, but accepted as reality. Knowing reality illuminates the real world."-shav
Sex...enjoyed, sold and borrowed.
michaelRokeefe10 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
YO PUTA aka WHORE is fusion of fact and fiction in a semi-documentary style as a young woman(Daryl Hannah)schedules interviews in completing her book exploring the secrets of the oldest profession in the world...sex. European 'escorts', pimps and johns discuss the pros and cons of prostitution; some with pride and others with frank regret. The sex trade can stupefy and titillate with a thin line separating pleasure from pain. It is a means of gaining independence, but at the same time put a high price on the cost of human self worth. Denise Richards is cast as student working on an anthropology PH.D. and considering prostitution as a way to pay the bills; being a virgin proves to get in the way. Strong sexual content and some nudity equal an R rating; but a large percent of the film is subtitled and may sustain flaccidity.
Camera Fetishes Focus on a Colorful Life
gradyharp29 August 2005
María Lidón directed 'Yo puta' ('The Life') based on material and story by Adela Ibañez and Isabel Pisano, tied in three established actors (Daryl Hannah, Denise Richards, and Joaquim de Almeida), and creative camera work (visual manipulations, frame freezing, etc) by Ricardo Aronovich - all with the apparent intent of explaining the etiologies and manifestations of the life of prostitutes. And while many viewers find the mélange of effects (real time interviews with fictional superimposed storyline) too edgy to digest, for this viewer Lidón succeeds in informing her audience about the motivations and insights from honest prostitutes, gigolos, and their pimps with a gracious style.
Searching for a format to tie these interviews together, the writers paired a fictional prostitute (Hannah) with an Anthropology student (Denise Richards) working on a book of interviews with prostitutes. Their roles are minor. Where the film succeeds is in the selection of interviewees - mostly Spanish (the film is from Spain), but including French, Eastern European, and other nationality women and men. The moments with these people are magical showing primarily the soft interior of most of the women who know precisely what they are doing and why: there are messages of survival and true courage as well as libidinous abandonment! There are rough spots in the film, extended moments that cry for editing, but the overall result is informative, creative and entertaining. Not for everyone perhaps, but for the curious and for those who enjoy experimental cinema this is a worthwhile film. Grady Harp
Searching for a format to tie these interviews together, the writers paired a fictional prostitute (Hannah) with an Anthropology student (Denise Richards) working on a book of interviews with prostitutes. Their roles are minor. Where the film succeeds is in the selection of interviewees - mostly Spanish (the film is from Spain), but including French, Eastern European, and other nationality women and men. The moments with these people are magical showing primarily the soft interior of most of the women who know precisely what they are doing and why: there are messages of survival and true courage as well as libidinous abandonment! There are rough spots in the film, extended moments that cry for editing, but the overall result is informative, creative and entertaining. Not for everyone perhaps, but for the curious and for those who enjoy experimental cinema this is a worthwhile film. Grady Harp
Different and not for the sex hungry
johnglasso20 May 2005
Today I feel many people get off on watching famous actors engage in sex and roaming in position which this film portrays. I don't think that this film is for people who love to watch sex on the box, but however for the people who never go that step to engage in hiring a prostitute.
The movie explores the lives and feelings in which call girls, escorts and gigolo's work. It provides some fantastic screens shots like the technique of framing a street. Clearly its providing the viewer with the environment which these people earn money to survive.
Denise Richards and Darryl Hannah I believe did not really have large roles in this film. The workers themselves got the fame and glory and the above girls were added as actors but portraying somewhat the main objective of the storyline.
It was interesting, I really liked the foreign use of language and subtitle, It makes the story more real rather then fake Hollywood. Have Denise and Darryl play there roles split-ed the film and was very clever in how it was timed. Everything flowed making it so much more interesting.
10 stars for the foreign girls who have the guts, 7 all up.
The movie explores the lives and feelings in which call girls, escorts and gigolo's work. It provides some fantastic screens shots like the technique of framing a street. Clearly its providing the viewer with the environment which these people earn money to survive.
Denise Richards and Darryl Hannah I believe did not really have large roles in this film. The workers themselves got the fame and glory and the above girls were added as actors but portraying somewhat the main objective of the storyline.
It was interesting, I really liked the foreign use of language and subtitle, It makes the story more real rather then fake Hollywood. Have Denise and Darryl play there roles split-ed the film and was very clever in how it was timed. Everything flowed making it so much more interesting.
10 stars for the foreign girls who have the guts, 7 all up.
Boring
Daisyschain12 September 2005
The scenes that ostensibly advance the "plot" are few an far between; punctuated by a jumbled mess of mock-documentary confessional scenes. The documentary segments might have been somewhat interesting, if only for their multi-national take on a common theme, except for the fact that they were edited in such a way as to jump from person to person within a topic, then back again, in no apparent order. The effect was to make it seem as though the director was attempting to s-t-r-e-t-c-h limited footage to take up more time. Not necessary, as it turned out, because the film seemed twice as long as it actually is.
The big question here is whether the direction or editing is worse. I suppose the direction appears worse due to choppy editing; the editing was probably worsened by horrible direction.
It is unfair to judge the acting ability of either Daryl Hannah or Denise Richards based upon this film. Questioning their judgment (or desperation?) in appearing in this mess of a film is another story entirely!
The big question here is whether the direction or editing is worse. I suppose the direction appears worse due to choppy editing; the editing was probably worsened by horrible direction.
It is unfair to judge the acting ability of either Daryl Hannah or Denise Richards based upon this film. Questioning their judgment (or desperation?) in appearing in this mess of a film is another story entirely!
Whether it's real or fake, it still sucks.
MBunge24 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The Life is one of the most inexplicable films I've ever watched. I not only can't imagine what the filmmakers were trying to do, I can't understand how they thought what they did do made any sense at all.
This is a movie about whoredom and all its many flavors. It's about 65% documentary (or pseudo-documentary) and 35% fictional story. The alleged documentary footage is of prostitutes, man-whores, johns, pimps, madams, porn stars and porn directors. The fictional story is about Rebecca (Denise Richards), a college student going for her PHD who's running out of money when she discovers her neighbor, Adriana (Daryl Hannah), is a prostitute and considers that line of work as a way to solve her financial problems.
I'm not entirely sure the documentary stuff is on the up and up because while it looks and sounds like the real stories of real sex workers, why in the world would you take those revealing and disturbing words and splice them together with a generic sex thriller you can find on late night cable? The film also seems to sometimes be oblivious or indifferent to how sad and pathetic most of the whores, whore-users and whoremongers it features, yet at other times seems to be self-consciously exploiting them. We hear awful stories about the lives of prostitutes but we also get lots of naked women on screen in deliberately provocative poses. If I had to bet, I'd say that it is real documentary interviews, just with a lot of show biz slathered over them.
I think that because the supposed whores who talk about themselves and their business are mostly unattractive skanks. The few johns interviewed all appear genuinely socially inept and the porno folks spotlighted are just sleazy enough, but not so screwed up that you can't understand how they get through the day. If those folks are actors, they all deserve Academy Awards.
The story of Rebecca and Adriana, as I mentioned, is like one of those late night Skinemax movies that everybody knows about but no one ever admits to watching, except it's shrunk down to about 30 minutes long and neither Hannah or Richards gets nude. It's impossible for me to conceive of what the filmmakers thought it was going to add to the film. It's not even like Richards and Hannah are big enough stars that putting them on the DVD cover, which they are, is going to drum up any significant sales.
This film does have a lot of arty editing throughout it - images morphing into each other, the whores and others are interviewed in front of a green screen and different backgrounds are thrown up behind them, the interviews and intercut as though the prostitutes were talking to each other - but these techniques are used over and over and over. What was sort of interesting the first time is boring by the 5th time.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to make a film like this or why anyone would want to watch it. It doesn't tell you anything about prostitution that dozens of TV news segments haven't before, it has no real point of view or perspective on whoring that it wants to share with the audience and the fictional portions are empty of any possible entertainment.
But I guess if you want to see some skanky ho's and point and laugh at Denise Richards as she tries to pass herself off as a 24 year old student going for her doctorate in anthropology, this is the only movie I know of where you can do both.
This is a movie about whoredom and all its many flavors. It's about 65% documentary (or pseudo-documentary) and 35% fictional story. The alleged documentary footage is of prostitutes, man-whores, johns, pimps, madams, porn stars and porn directors. The fictional story is about Rebecca (Denise Richards), a college student going for her PHD who's running out of money when she discovers her neighbor, Adriana (Daryl Hannah), is a prostitute and considers that line of work as a way to solve her financial problems.
I'm not entirely sure the documentary stuff is on the up and up because while it looks and sounds like the real stories of real sex workers, why in the world would you take those revealing and disturbing words and splice them together with a generic sex thriller you can find on late night cable? The film also seems to sometimes be oblivious or indifferent to how sad and pathetic most of the whores, whore-users and whoremongers it features, yet at other times seems to be self-consciously exploiting them. We hear awful stories about the lives of prostitutes but we also get lots of naked women on screen in deliberately provocative poses. If I had to bet, I'd say that it is real documentary interviews, just with a lot of show biz slathered over them.
I think that because the supposed whores who talk about themselves and their business are mostly unattractive skanks. The few johns interviewed all appear genuinely socially inept and the porno folks spotlighted are just sleazy enough, but not so screwed up that you can't understand how they get through the day. If those folks are actors, they all deserve Academy Awards.
The story of Rebecca and Adriana, as I mentioned, is like one of those late night Skinemax movies that everybody knows about but no one ever admits to watching, except it's shrunk down to about 30 minutes long and neither Hannah or Richards gets nude. It's impossible for me to conceive of what the filmmakers thought it was going to add to the film. It's not even like Richards and Hannah are big enough stars that putting them on the DVD cover, which they are, is going to drum up any significant sales.
This film does have a lot of arty editing throughout it - images morphing into each other, the whores and others are interviewed in front of a green screen and different backgrounds are thrown up behind them, the interviews and intercut as though the prostitutes were talking to each other - but these techniques are used over and over and over. What was sort of interesting the first time is boring by the 5th time.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to make a film like this or why anyone would want to watch it. It doesn't tell you anything about prostitution that dozens of TV news segments haven't before, it has no real point of view or perspective on whoring that it wants to share with the audience and the fictional portions are empty of any possible entertainment.
But I guess if you want to see some skanky ho's and point and laugh at Denise Richards as she tries to pass herself off as a 24 year old student going for her doctorate in anthropology, this is the only movie I know of where you can do both.
Pretentious garbage
Ryu_Darkwood7 June 2006
Yo Puta is nothing more than a pretentious soft porn documentary about prostitution, that doesn't do anything else than making its male viewers horny. It has no depth or intriguing characters whatsoever, just dirty talk, nudity and uninteresting opinions. The '' fictive '' part is so bad that it makes you want to puke instantly. How on earth could actresses like Daryll Hannah and Denise Richards lend their face for a horrible product like this?! I can just name one thing that is more degrading, and that's starring in an adult movie...
I was truly shocked by the way this movie actually glamorizes prostitution, knowing how much grief this degrading job brings to a lot of women. As long as there are still so much under aged girls and women that are forced to work in this business, I think it's completely inappropriate to glamorize prostitution.
I was truly shocked by the way this movie actually glamorizes prostitution, knowing how much grief this degrading job brings to a lot of women. As long as there are still so much under aged girls and women that are forced to work in this business, I think it's completely inappropriate to glamorize prostitution.
Minor correction on previous reviewer's behalf...
third_row_center10 October 2005
I saw this movie on cable. I'm glad I didn't pay to rent it. Years ago I saw the Teresa Russell version titled "Whore" and I found it equally dry and disconnected. But I was at least compelled to watch that version with interest due to the slightly better quality of the production. This time around, despite the appeal of Denise Richards, I found it to be choppy and tedious. The constant "code switching" -- between the gritty documentary style and the Hollywood stars in fabricated studio sets -- really pollutes the vision of what this film is trying to achieve, I think. Honestly, the best thing this movie has going for it is the provocative poster featuring a woman shaving herself. (Furthermore, I can't get over the fact that Daryl Hannah continues to get work in the film industry, but that's just me.)
In closing, I wish to make an important point regarding the previous reviewer's comments. With all due respect to lizardiharp's submission above, the Spanish phrase 'Yo Puta' does not translate to 'The Life.' 'La Vida' means 'The Life.' 'Yo Puta' means, appropriately, 'I am a whore.'
In closing, I wish to make an important point regarding the previous reviewer's comments. With all due respect to lizardiharp's submission above, the Spanish phrase 'Yo Puta' does not translate to 'The Life.' 'La Vida' means 'The Life.' 'Yo Puta' means, appropriately, 'I am a whore.'
Cheap Thrills, Titilation, Occasionally Candid
batzi8m116 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this on Showtime, just before the 147th showing of Spidergirl.
This gives you an idea of what we're talking about here. T&A between interviews of Ho's Pimps and Gigolos from the legal trade.
OK in the beginning they all talk like it's their choice and what they want. By the end they're whining about wanting to get out and have a normal family with kids and all that. Right down to the interview with the faceless Russian mobster talking about force, violence and keeping the passports to keep the girls working for them. All pure stereotype and nothing we haven't seen better before by real documentaries. Oh except they have flashy sexy sets from inside tacky euro-trash whorehouses complete with the red satin and mirrors.
Denise Richards and Darryl Hannah provide the titillation to keep the viewer interested with one of those horribly lame plots like you get in soft core porn like the Red Shoe Diaries.
A long time ago Umberto Eco wrote an essay on how to tell if you're watching a porno film. If the drive to the house takes way too long as a setup ... ie. if the fluff is just to fill time then that's what you got.
Not the worst ... by far ... of porn producers trying to justify themselves.
Personally Spiderbabe was much better.
This gives you an idea of what we're talking about here. T&A between interviews of Ho's Pimps and Gigolos from the legal trade.
OK in the beginning they all talk like it's their choice and what they want. By the end they're whining about wanting to get out and have a normal family with kids and all that. Right down to the interview with the faceless Russian mobster talking about force, violence and keeping the passports to keep the girls working for them. All pure stereotype and nothing we haven't seen better before by real documentaries. Oh except they have flashy sexy sets from inside tacky euro-trash whorehouses complete with the red satin and mirrors.
Denise Richards and Darryl Hannah provide the titillation to keep the viewer interested with one of those horribly lame plots like you get in soft core porn like the Red Shoe Diaries.
A long time ago Umberto Eco wrote an essay on how to tell if you're watching a porno film. If the drive to the house takes way too long as a setup ... ie. if the fluff is just to fill time then that's what you got.
Not the worst ... by far ... of porn producers trying to justify themselves.
Personally Spiderbabe was much better.
Yo, nothing
RResende26 May 2008
This was a complete waste of eventually useful ideas. I enjoy a filmmaker who tries to get out of the preconceived canons and ways to tell a story. Nowadays, the best cinematic essays one can find is on how to reformulate narrative devices and story telling, and in a second plan, visual renewed ideas. If the eye narrative is in conformity with the storytelling device, that's when we have great films.
Here we have a work by someone who probably agrees with what i told above, but, at least in this try (second try, according to IMDb) was completely clumsy, useless, bad tasted. This is a terrible work, it pretended much, it tried to do things in an imaginative way, but the final work is a disaster, originated, i believe, in the lack of sensitivity of who worked this.
So, we're being told a fictionalized narrative, multi layered. This means we have a great number of threads to follow (here associated with different prostitutes). The device used is the false documentary. In the middle of that assumed fakery, we have a fiction line, with Richards, Hannah and Almeida.The problem is how rigidly this construction is made, and how little imaginative it becomes in its development. I mean, the actresses playing prostitutes (i really suppose they were all actresses, i just had a doubt on one or two) are a complete cliché, someone sit down and thought "how many kinds of prostitutes, and prostitution motivations, and prostitutes social conditions ca i think of?". And that's it. We have the African black nymphomaniac, we have the Brazilian hot "sexual available" lookalike prostitute, we have the Latin American Indian descendant prostitute, we have the high class escort (who is french!), we have the male prostitute. We have those who like what they do, those who do it for money, and those who don't have other choice. So useless, so superficial, so boring, such a waste of time. There are such great examples on fake documentaries about half real realities ('F for Fake' being at the top of this list) that it is terrible that someone could do this like we see here. What's the point of portraying people that look like prostitutes, talk like several stereotypes of prostitution would talk, act like prostitutes, live like prostitutes, but are in fact actors? The question is: why not place real prostitutes and make a real documentary if there is no manipulation, no intention at all behind the fake documentary?
Than, to conclude, the fiction story. An anthropology student, virgin, who is studying prostitution. Her neighbour is a prostitute and due to financial trouble, she comes to enter the job as well. What was the point? In the end, this developed as those common documentaries made for TV channels, History, Biography, Odisseia, etc. With an exception: with those documentaries, one can at least take valuable facts, if you don't know them, and if you like being distracted (i don't) you can rely on the awful fictional bits.
The visual resolution of this is made in accordance to the uselessness of the story choices. Most of the way we have women detached from whatever the environment was where they were speaking, and pasted above the photograph of a cheap hotel where prostitution happens. Other times we have useless visual tricks, of deforming images, and highly saturated colours.
My opinion: 1/5 avoid it.
http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
Here we have a work by someone who probably agrees with what i told above, but, at least in this try (second try, according to IMDb) was completely clumsy, useless, bad tasted. This is a terrible work, it pretended much, it tried to do things in an imaginative way, but the final work is a disaster, originated, i believe, in the lack of sensitivity of who worked this.
So, we're being told a fictionalized narrative, multi layered. This means we have a great number of threads to follow (here associated with different prostitutes). The device used is the false documentary. In the middle of that assumed fakery, we have a fiction line, with Richards, Hannah and Almeida.The problem is how rigidly this construction is made, and how little imaginative it becomes in its development. I mean, the actresses playing prostitutes (i really suppose they were all actresses, i just had a doubt on one or two) are a complete cliché, someone sit down and thought "how many kinds of prostitutes, and prostitution motivations, and prostitutes social conditions ca i think of?". And that's it. We have the African black nymphomaniac, we have the Brazilian hot "sexual available" lookalike prostitute, we have the Latin American Indian descendant prostitute, we have the high class escort (who is french!), we have the male prostitute. We have those who like what they do, those who do it for money, and those who don't have other choice. So useless, so superficial, so boring, such a waste of time. There are such great examples on fake documentaries about half real realities ('F for Fake' being at the top of this list) that it is terrible that someone could do this like we see here. What's the point of portraying people that look like prostitutes, talk like several stereotypes of prostitution would talk, act like prostitutes, live like prostitutes, but are in fact actors? The question is: why not place real prostitutes and make a real documentary if there is no manipulation, no intention at all behind the fake documentary?
Than, to conclude, the fiction story. An anthropology student, virgin, who is studying prostitution. Her neighbour is a prostitute and due to financial trouble, she comes to enter the job as well. What was the point? In the end, this developed as those common documentaries made for TV channels, History, Biography, Odisseia, etc. With an exception: with those documentaries, one can at least take valuable facts, if you don't know them, and if you like being distracted (i don't) you can rely on the awful fictional bits.
The visual resolution of this is made in accordance to the uselessness of the story choices. Most of the way we have women detached from whatever the environment was where they were speaking, and pasted above the photograph of a cheap hotel where prostitution happens. Other times we have useless visual tricks, of deforming images, and highly saturated colours.
My opinion: 1/5 avoid it.
http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
This is worse than pornography
mrbusyb8 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Rather than giving this movie a ten, I've got to give it a twenty in the amount of showers you will feel like taking after watching it. There is something deeply disturbing not about the movie in particular, but about the writer behind it - and that my friend is how you know it is a really bad movie. Issues? Well, someone involved in making this movie hates men and that suspense at least makes the plot interesting. Normally, when a movie has Denise Richards in it, you want to watch it for the eye candy alone. But, while the woman doesn't take off any of her clothes in this movie, she has already way over exposed all her blemishes and birthmarks in the movie Wild Things. I really hate criticizing Denise because of the small chance in hell that she and I might one day hit it off. And even the thought of her taking off her clothes and acting like a prostitute offends something in me as I only want to perceive her as one of those pure virgin angels who used to be a cheerleader for my high school. But enough about my psychotic notions and back to the psychotic movie itself. For an old lady, Daryl Hannah humps a couch good. Strangely, I don't have any problems viewing her as a naked prostitute though she never really strips. The woman is so old she is actually older than myself while I am older than dirt. So, she must be taking really good care of herself.
THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY!
igor-dajic19 May 2004
Must a polite human being become so agitated and provoked with one simple miscalculation - I was going to see a documentary and I saw Denise Richards trying to prove to us all that she is an actress after all. This being the only movie where she can show her body and make a statement, I felt she has shown us nothing. A well spoken and well behaved young lady she may be - Daryl Hannah should have gone somewhere with that innocent kiss on a side of ms. Richards back. This is the only movie these two fine ladies get to ''act'' along side with a porn director Pierre Woodman and a bunch of Hungarian porn stars. Be it as it may - a watchable movie, but a bit posh - since it almost completely leaves out the lowest forms of prostitution - a blow for a blow.
Ain't it funny how a Spanish point of view suits the Americans? Or is it the other way around?
You see more of Daryl Hannah (and I mean more flesh and acting!) in Cocktail along side Tom Cruise. And that was just another chick-movie! What is this then?
Ain't it funny how a Spanish point of view suits the Americans? Or is it the other way around?
You see more of Daryl Hannah (and I mean more flesh and acting!) in Cocktail along side Tom Cruise. And that was just another chick-movie! What is this then?
And I'm a martyr!!
rainking_es16 March 2007
They say Jesus Christ sacrificed for our sins, he suffered for us all
Alright, I think that I've just done the same that Jesus: I've watched "Yo, p..." so no one have to watch it anymore. I'll carry the cross, my brothers. The cross which is this apology of the prostitution, this fake documentary, this fake fiction. To prostitute yourselves is "just like any other thing" (that's what they say when they want to justify what cannot be justified, when they want to humanize the subhuman, to dignify the unworthy) , and men are just pigs, thirsty for sex, unmerciful pimps. The documentary part and its more than debatable message, its "artie" and post-modern touch, is hair-raising enough to keep yourself away from this treasure; but, let me tell you: the fictitious part is even worst!!! What did Denise Richards, Daryl Hannah, and Joaquin De Almeida drink in the party where the signed the contacts??? (I wan some of that too!!) . Well, the fictitious part has no rhythm, no sense of the narrative style
hey, What am I doing??? I'm not gonna lose more of my time with this crap: one of the biggest rubbish of 2004, and come on with that final dot!.
My rate: 0/10
My rate: 0/10
A call for respect, not for pity
kellow11 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It is refreshing to see a movie that approaches the sex industry from a matter of fact point of view, neither presenting a case for or against the profession, but merely letting the women (and men) speak for themselves. It's a shame that what is essentially a documentary had to be interlaced with the frankly pointless nod at the commercial market of including the uninspiring fictional Hannah/Richards subplot, something which ruins rather than enhances a movie that has very little technical merit of its own, but solely succeeds through the testimonies of the people that live and work in the industry. Some of the reviewers here have commented on the glamourising of prostitution, and this movie offers only a short glimpse of the sad underworld of the ladies that are forced or cheated into selling their bodies. But although this movie does acknowledge that aspect of prostitution, what it does better is explain how, despite the concept being unconceivable to so many 'normal' people, many if not most women that go into prostitution do so of their own free will, find it a very financially (and often mentally and physically) rewarding profession, and the only misery they really suffer is not directly from their work, but from the rejection that society thrusts upon them. Those that are involved in prostitution find it governs their lives, for good or for bad. Those that are not, ignore or condemn the practice. What this movie offers is a cry from sex workers not for help or pity, which is something only those in the most desperate of cases need, but a cry to be respected and accepted for what they do. Yo, Puta is no cinematic masterpiece. Essentially all it offers is a series of sex workers (and some clients) speaking about what they do. Where it succeeds is that despite the simplicity of the production, it is dealing with a subject that naturally enthralls - and that includes women that may never dream of ever having sex for money, but can't help but have a curious fascination to know what it would be like. It's one of the easiest ways in the world that a woman can make money, but at the same time one of the most difficult. This movie is worth 5 points at best, but from somebody who is trying to cope with the fact that his own girlfriend is an escort girl, and has learned so much that is both good and bad about a world he never knew, this was essential viewing for understanding what goes through her mind, and therefore gets a full 10.
more than what one might think
thesiouxfallskid28 December 2010
Part documentary and part fiction this film involves the world of prostitution. I give it plus points for interviews of substance which evidently are the real thing, minus points for the rather lame fictional parts, and minus a bit more for being rather thrown together. The film is connected with a book by Isabela Pisano, Yo Puta, which came out about same time on conversations with prostitutes. So apparently the driving force behind the film was Isabela Pisano, who as an actress in the late 70s starred in films as a prostitute, and who later as a journalist wrote a book Yo Terrorista and a biography on Yasser Arafat with whom she had some sort of relationship over a 12-year period. More about all this on Wikipedia and links you will find there. I do think that this film presents a very worthwhile, multifaceted view of prostitution. To its credit the film is more interviews than story.
Yo Puta I want my money back
RavenGlamDVDCollector8 March 2015
Very disappointing. I wanted Denise Richards and Daryl Hannah, not this most-of-the-time boring documentary. I must admit though, before ordering the DVD, after seeing the trailer, and checking it out on IMDb, I did know it was a semi-documentary, but was just now very dismayed to see so little of the two actresses that were my main interest. Instead, I suffered through pimps, male escorts, and a variety of stuff I wouldn't have wanted on Movie Night at Casa RavenGlam. I am in a grumpy mood. Wanted pretty Denise Richards. Bah! There is a truck-ugly black hooker in the interviews that hog the screen as I just sit there wishing Denisie, Denisie, won't you pleasie? Hell, it's hopeless enough when you're wishing upon an ice princess, but when her screen-time is minimal...
If you wanna watch this for nudity, rather try PRIVATE's CASTING X. Pierre Woodman, the charming ol' rogue, and his work, is there in full glory and can be loads of fun, depending on his victim of the hour. If you wanna see a story about two beauties in a world of prostitution, stay clear, there's very little footage of Denise and Daryl; the story is virtually absent. If you want a documentary about prostitution, yeah, go for it, but I fail to see anything insightful. This is nothing ground-breaking. It's elementary. The world is full of monsters and if you have to shag monsters for your money, you're gonna have a horrible time, of course! If you watch this to have a great time looking at the poor mother-of-a-three-year-old crying at her wasted life, THEN *UCK OFF AND DIE! (IMDb should have allowed me the artistic license here to do that one uncensored but I suppose it's no use arguing)
In short, a wasted opportunity for Denise Richards fans. She is so damn pretty she should have been in a decent movie looking as great as she does here, years after her turn as a Bond girl. Hey, Denise, you really screwed up! So many of your stuff fall flat! Hell, who was your agent? Well, fire the bum!
If you wanna watch this for nudity, rather try PRIVATE's CASTING X. Pierre Woodman, the charming ol' rogue, and his work, is there in full glory and can be loads of fun, depending on his victim of the hour. If you wanna see a story about two beauties in a world of prostitution, stay clear, there's very little footage of Denise and Daryl; the story is virtually absent. If you want a documentary about prostitution, yeah, go for it, but I fail to see anything insightful. This is nothing ground-breaking. It's elementary. The world is full of monsters and if you have to shag monsters for your money, you're gonna have a horrible time, of course! If you watch this to have a great time looking at the poor mother-of-a-three-year-old crying at her wasted life, THEN *UCK OFF AND DIE! (IMDb should have allowed me the artistic license here to do that one uncensored but I suppose it's no use arguing)
In short, a wasted opportunity for Denise Richards fans. She is so damn pretty she should have been in a decent movie looking as great as she does here, years after her turn as a Bond girl. Hey, Denise, you really screwed up! So many of your stuff fall flat! Hell, who was your agent? Well, fire the bum!
True world of prostitutes
clue1345-16 July 2006
When I heard about this film I thought that it was going to be a dumb porno about prostitutes or superficial like some other programs that I have seen that tried to tap into the true world of prostitutes. I decided to give it a chance because I knew and respected the work of the American actresses in the film. I felt that this movie was very artistically done and I loved the mixture of languages, Spanish, Italian, Portugese, Hungarian, English etc. This mixture of language displayed how widespread this profession is. In this movie a variety of prostitutes were shown from girls working with agencies, to girls working alone to girls trying to do porn. It also showed some of the male's perspectives of the business and their involvement. I especially liked how it touched on human trafficking and sex slaves because many people do not know that some prostitutes are forced into the profession. Overall an extremely well done movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
