MBunge 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.

third_row_center 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.'

mentalcritic 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.

Zima Filippov 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.