Yo puta

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.

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

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.

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/

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