A very literate script by John Huston and Howard Koch makes this one worth seeing. Only after the initial intriguing premise is set in motion do we discover to our amusement that all the characters we've become interested in are fairly despicable, particularly Geraldine Fitzgerald as a sociopath and nymphomaniac. With the unusually well observed character details provided by the script and the use of many supporting and bit actors one hasn't seen in lots of other pictures, THREE STRANGERS really has something of the atmosphere of London in 1938 rather than of London-via-Hollywood.

And make no mistake: Despite good direction by Jean Negulesco, John Huston's cynicism, pessimism and misogyny are evident everywhere, and that alone makes this unusual in a '40s picture. Like MALTESE FALCON it is a black comedy about greed, but it has no big stars, no glamor, and only the sliest, cruelest humor. Add the perfectly judged performances of everyone in this film, and it adds up to a neglected near-classic, one that seemed to predict the funnier and more elegant KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS.

As the real star of the film, Peter Lorre is wonderfully wry and quite lovable as one of life's eternal losers. Sydney Greenstreet often played nasty men deliciously but here he takes his character's weakness and pettiness much further than usual, and his scenes of escalating madness are very effective. Geraldine Fitzgerald's portrait of an amoral seductress is different than what she usually played at Warners, and should be considered some kind of '40s milestone in the depiction of depraved women alongside Gene Tierney in LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN and Agnes Moorehead in DARK PASSAGE. She's aided by some very form-fitting Milo Anderson gowns, one of which, a pleated satin negligee, was recycled in black for Patricia Neal in THE FOUNTAINHEAD a few years later. It looks great in both incarnations. In smaller parts Peter Whitney makes an impression as a soft-hearted (and homosexual?) crony of Lorre's, and Rosalind Ivan is memorable as a dotty widow who is much shrewder than she appears. Finally, the casting of Fitzgerald, Marjorie Riordan and Joan Lorring (who looks like a young Irene Selznick) is curious: all three young women have prominent noses, darkly painted lips and very dark, shoulder-length hair which is styled similarly. And as each character descends in economic scale, her looks are heavier and plainer. Another comment on how fickle fortune can be? Anne Sharp's comment below that the characters are meant to illustrate the dark forces that enabled WWII is interesting and valuable.

By the way, the print shown on TCM is rather dim, sketchy and full of harsh contrasts so it's hard to judge what the film was actually meant to look like. Whoever now owns the Warner Bros. library should strike a pristine version of this one.


It was over 20 years ago that I first encountered this small cinematic treasure, on the now-defunct indie KHJ-TV, channel 9 in Los Angeles, but it was not at all by accident. Having been enthralled by the magic that is "Casablanca" some years before, I had been seeking out other films like it made by Warner Bros. in the late 30s, 40s and early 50s. Specifically I was after more work by that classic's storied supporting cast: Paul Henried, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Claude Rains, S.Z. Sakall and Joy Page, among others.

"Three Strangers" gathers two of those and weaves them into a unexpectedly amoral tale of the cost of reversing fortune. Lorre plays a fallen gentleman who fallen into a bottle and thus into some dicey company, while Greenstreet plays a solicitor who's been a tad too speculative with his trust accounts. The underregarded Geraldine Fitzgerald joins them as the mysterious woman who randomly gathers the other two off a London street to see if they'll take a chance on an ancient Chinese proverb coming true.

"Three Strangers" if anything goes "Casablanca" and that other Huston/Lorre/Greenstreet classic, "The Maltese Falcon," one better in the world-weariness department, with moral ambiguities and ambivalent characters straight out of films noir made five years later. Unlike those other two films, though, there's little likability to be found in the lead characters' roguishness --- save perhaps for Lorre, who gets redeemed by a "good" woman's love at the end.

Yet that very fact makes "Three Strangers" play out like a much more modern film (like one from the early 1970s, say), rendering it an intriguing admixture of old-style character-driven plotting and contemporary moral waywardness and antiheroism.


One of the most unusual facets of the movie that struck me was the gowns/dresses designed for the lead actress--they stood out in this black and white movie making a not-so-tall Geraldine Fitzgerald look tall and elegant. Very few films have costume designs that out-do the performances--this film is one that achieves this unusual distinction.

Equally unusual was the written prologue for the film on the statue. It wreaked of populist myths of the Orient and then ended with the statement that the film's location was London. One expected British mannerisms and accents and its distinctive transport--but the only reasons for the choice of the locations seemed to be the legal system, the law on Trusts, the pubs, the mention of Canada being far away, the South African mines, and the solicitor's office. The rest was distinctly American. Curious stuff.

The film was equally curious for another factor: two women Icey and Janet look disturbingly similar, two men look considerably alike Mr Shackleford and Mr Fallon, save for their difference in height. Was there some reason for this or was this a coincidence.

Apart from these details, the film provided much of the fare that "The Maltese Falcon" made cinema history--John Huston's screenplay and the enigmatic performances of Greenstreet and Lorre. Greenstreet did not have the brilliant lines of "Falcon" to aid him but his chortling performance is nevertheless fascinating. Lorre on the other hand provides the best performance because the grey cocktail of good and bad touches the viewer. Similarly the lead character of Fitzgerald leaves the viewer wondering whether the character deserves our sympathy or not.

At the end, the viewer is forced to see ourselves in the mirror--we are but pawns of a mightier force, and none of us is either a villain or a saint. The film quite unwittingly makes the viewer think about life. That is probably why this film ought to rate better than "The Maltese Falcon" which no doubt has more catchy dialogues but less substance.


This is one fine made movie. It has a greatly written script and a top-notch cast.

It sounds like a cliché of course but it's a real shame that movies like these aren't being made and written anymore. At least not on such a commercially large scale and with such fine big name actors in it. Movies like this aren't made anymore simply because movies like this don't really sell, unless they are being made exceptionally good.

It's not really a film-noir, although the movie certainly shows similarities to the atmosphere and the story also shows noir tendencies. The movie in the end is perhaps a bit too 'light' to consider it a real film-noir, also because it features quite an amount of subtle black comedy.

The story is solidly constructed and focuses on three different characters and plot-lines that of course are all still connected to each other. The fine script was written by Hollywood legend John Huston. It features lots of deeper themes such as greed and jealousy. You really start to care about the characters and their problems. Something that isn't too common for a '40's genre movie. It's not always an easy movie to watch and follow so make sure you watch this movie with a clear head. The dialog might be a bit overlong by todays standards but its so fine written and delivered by the actors that you tend to look past this.

The movie gets really carried by the three main characters, that equally share the screen time. I was especially impressed by Sydney Greenstreet, which also might due to the fact that he had the best- or at least most credible plot line. Peter Lorre also played a great role and gave a fine performance. Geraldine Fitzgerald was definitely the least of the three actors and she tended to overact a bit in some of the dramatic sequences. But overall her role was also really a solid one and it says something about the quality of the acting from Lorre and Greenstreet to say that Fitzgerald gave the lesser performance of the movie. Alan Napier also plays a small role. Oh man, it really seems to be that this guy is in about every 'old' movie that I watch lately. Napier received his most fame for playing the butler Alfred in the Adam West "Batman" series from the '60's.

The editing of the movie was also surprisingly good and fast. Instead of long single camera sequences, the movie cuts back and forth between different camera positions in the same sequence rapidly. It gives the story speed and helps to keep you interest even during the more slow and dull moments of the movie. The fine little musical score was from acclaimed composer Adolph Deutsch, whose music suited this movie and its atmosphere really well.

It's a fine good old fashioned quality movie, made with limited resources but with fine experts involved.

8/10


The time is 1938 London before the World War. A woman of mystery, Geraldine Fitzgerald, invites two perfect strangers played by Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet up to her apartment. She's a believer in the ancient Chinese god of Kwan Lin and it's said that if Three Strangers wish on that deity and their's is the same wish it will be granted. In this case the wish is money and it's in the form of a sweepstakes ticket that Peter Lorre has purchased and who gives two thirds away to Fitzgerald and Greenstreet in the hope of fortune coming their way.

After this we see a glimpse of the lives of the three people. Lorre is a petty criminal who's gotten himself into a beautiful jackpot being accused of a murder that he didn't commit. Fitzgerald is a shrewish wife who stays married to an unhappy Alan Napier who just wants to be free to marry Marjorie Riordan. This is a harbinger of a role that Fitzgerald really perfected a dozen years later in Ten North Frederick. As for Greenstreet, he's a solicitor, an attorney of no great significance in the legal profession, an English version of a man whose name I was once threatened with named Abe Hecht. It's now become a synonym for cheap shysters with me. Anyway Greenstreet's the trustee of an estate he's been dipping into. He wants to make a financial killing real bad because he thinks that money will buy him respectability which he craves like nothing else.

The film is like a 90 minute version of a Twilight Zone episode, but that's not a putdown because some really classic stuff was done on that program. The script was written by Howard Koch and John Huston and directed by Jean Negulesco. I'm surprised Huston did not want to direct this one himself, but Jean Negulesco got some of the best performances that members of the cast ever gave on screen, especially from the three leads.

Notice no really big movie names are in this cast, no leading men screen legends. That may have been an asset to the film because it concentrates on the story and the characters created. The ironic fates of all three of the sweepstakes ticket sharers could have come right out of the imaginative mind of Rod Serling. And Peter Lorre is actually allowed a little romance in a movie. That alone makes Three Strangers absolutely priceless.

Three Strangers is a B picture gem, one of those low budget sleepers that Hollywood puts out to great critical acclaim that turn a profit because of the low budget. And this review is dedicated to that attorney Abe Hecht whom I never met and to his idiot brother-in-law Morris Stetch who threatened me with him back in 1979. To see if Greenstreet obtains the status of a Clarence Darrow and rises from Abe Hechtdom, don't miss Three Strangers.


THREE STRANGERS stake their future fortunes on the whims of Kwan Yin, an ancient Chinese goddess.

The original story behind this tidy little thriller was originally conceived by John Huston as a sequel to THE MALTESE FALCON (1941). That not proving possible, it was shaped into its present form with help from the writer Howard Koch and turned over to the noted director Jean Negulesco.

The film stars Sydney Greenstreet & Peter Lorre in one of their several pairings. Greenstreet, huge and implacable, plays a desperately duplicitous solicitor. Spooky-eyed Lorre, who gets to play a rare romantic role, is a petty criminal on the lam from the police. Their actual screen time together is sparse, but they make the most of it--the nervous little fellow playing perfectly off of the rumbling fat man. Greenstreet, especially, overacts magnificently, descending into melancholia and, eventually, madness, to the delight of the viewer.

Geraldine Fitzgerald is pure vixen as the third member of the trio, a woman so consumed by jealousy, and obsessed with the supposed powers of the goddess Kwan Yin, that she has ceased being influenced by natural love & affection. Every man's nightmare, she is unadulterated malice.

The supporting cast includes the sprightly Joan Lorring as Lorre's loyal girlfriend; Alan Napier as Fitzgerald's estranged husband; Rosalind Ivan as a widowed dowager still in communication with her deceased husband; Arthur Shields as a stern prosecutor; and the always competent Doris Lloyd as Lorre's slovenly landlady.

Movie mavens will recognize an unbilled Ian Wolfe as a London barrister.


Three Strangers is not a typical Hollywood film. Dark and philosophical, it introduces the viewer to three people, strangers to one another, and then follows their sad, desperate lives. While one reviewer on this site says it's a shame they don't make movies like this anymore, the fact is, they almost never made movies like this back then. This is far less neat and more philosophical than your typical 40s flick, a movie about strange twists of fate and the ways in which people fail to take responsibility for their actions.

The cast is excellent, with Peter Lorre particularly impressive in one of the best performances of his career as an alcoholic who thinks too much and does too little. I was also quite taken by Joan Lorring's touchingly vulnerable performance as a girl in with the wrong crowd.

Admittedly the ending ties things up in a neat little bow, yet for the most part this movie is far closer in spirit to the indie movies of the 1990s than to the film noirs of the 1940s it could be mistaken for.


"It has always been man's desire to invent idols on whom he can place the responsibility for his own actions. Perhaps these three strangers in this story, whose lives have really nothing to do with each other, would never have met except for a very ancient idol: the Chinese goddess, Kwan Yin. And perhaps their separate stories might have been different except for what happened that night. And then again, perhaps not." (OPENING TITLE SCREEN)

And so begins THREE STRANGERS. It sounded interesting enough.

But in the end, I didn't particularly care for this film. That mostly stems from the fact that it's based on the lives of selfish, self-absorbed people looking to change their fortunes.

It looks rather low budget as nothing really impressed me with the sets or the cinematography. The acting was adequate, but ultimately couldn't overcome the problem for me with the characters in general.

Mostly, it was a film full of unlikeable people - with the exception of Peter Lorre's character. He was the least offensive of the three main characters although still a drunken crook - but he seemed less harmful.

In the end, I couldn't have cared less what happened with any of the people in this film. I think the premise could have been interesting - the idea of 3 people's lives intertwined because of a winning lottery ticket. But ultimately, it failed to deliver.


Geraldine Fitzgerald, (Crystal Shackleford) strolls down a London street and manages to recruit two strangers named Jerome K. Arbutny, (Sydney Greenstreet) and Johnny West, (Peter Lorre) to her apartment in order to celebrate a Chinese New Year. Crystal has a statue in her apartment named the goddess Kwan Yin which will open her eyes and grant wishes to the three strangers which involves a sweepstakes ticket. The two strangers have some very dark secrets and Jerome Arbutny is a crooked solicitor who steals money from trust funds and Johnny West is a small time criminal who loves to drink all the time. Crystal is a woman who has a husband who just plain left her and found another woman and then he is asking her for a divorce, but Crystal will not give him a divorce. If you liked seeing these actors in previous films you will enjoy viewing this film which is very mysterious with very dark secrets. Enjoy.


"Moon Over Tao" is a wacky, entertaining movie that successfully blends together the samurai, fantasy and sci-fi genres. It feels very much like a retro-piece with a lot of silly effects and of course, chambara level of gore and blood splatter. Direcor Keita Amemiya directs it accordingly with a less focus on story than in action. And it pays of in the end.

Story is that of two men, one a Buddhist monk with magical powers and the other a highly skilled samurai warrior with an indestructible sword. The two have began a journey to discover the source of the indestructible swords. Along the way they meet a young girl working as a beekeeper. Respectively the girl later meets three alien samurai chicks that start fighting without a reason, as one of them is mortally wounded she enlists the girl to help them find and stop a the strange beast/weapon. After a mutual agreement with the help of the two men, the three of them set of and discover the source of the indestructible swords and the strange beast/weapon. It does not take long before said beast/weapon is awaken and then all hell brakes loose.

To put it simply, the story is silly. Characters are as complicated as those found in a Jean Claude Van Damme movie, some even border on the annoying level, yes I do mean the girl beekeeper with that. All you really need to know is who are the good guys, who are the bad and how many walking meat-bags are there on their side. In this case a lot. And thank God for that, because fights scenes tend to get bloody with some good all classic chambara effects, such as the blood geysers and chopped of limbs. It get's even better when the beast/weapon gets loose. You see it has a certain habit that involves eating it's opponents. Amemiya does a good job with the action and gore and it's all just fun to watch. Choreography is reasonably well done, with the individual showdowns standing up from the more massive scenes. Creature effects are surprisingly good, combining CGI and a designed prop for close-up use. While everything else is done in the old fashioned way, meaning none to minimal use of any other CGI. One other concern that Amemiya has with "Moon Over Tao" is the ever lasting question of how many people can cram in an action scene. Luckily the cannon fodder is plenty. The showdown between our two warriors and the evil warlord's henchmen is pretty massive in terms of body count and respectively entertaining.

"Moon Over Tao" should not be taken as a serious movie, or as a highly intellectual movie. Those that do take it as such will definitely hate it. What Keita Amemiya really made is a homage to the old days of chambara movies where gore and wackiness was abundant. And really this is for people that loved this type of cinema.


Few films try to jam as much into their plots as this one, and it pulls it off in the best tradition of zany, creative, mid-budget exploitation film.

Samurai, aliens, magicians, and a demonic monster all converge to make this adventure complete, and its bloodthirsty finale will appease many people's need for gore. You'll wonder what arcane drugs writer/director Keita Amamiya took to come up with the loony and violent scenarios that populate this twisted fantasy/sci-fi hybrid.

Amamiya has done many of the "Kamen Rider" pictures, which explains his need to have sexy, helmeted female UFO-nauts in this picture. Indeed, other than the extreme violence, the film feels like a 1960s-era movie, complete with a stop-motion beast straight out of a Ray Harryhausen film.

Not to be missed for fans of bizarro midnight movies!


After watching this brilliant movie,I came to conclusion that(besides "Braindead")this is the best horror/comedy of the 90's.The acting is great,the characters are captivating,the photography is nice and the humour scenes are excellent.This is the first horror/comedy from Spanish director Alex de la Iglesia.Hey guy,I hope to hear about you soon.The funniest sequence is when the priest is looking for the blood of the virgin to summon Satan.On the other hand,this creative film beats any of these expensive pseudo-horror movies from Hollywood.If you are a real horror-fan like me you should check it out.


When you consider all the elements that have gone into this movie, it's hard to deny that it really shouldn't have worked. Spanish director Álex de la Iglesia has put together a film that fuses ideas of the apocalypse and the antichrist with heavy metal and one of the blackest streaks of humour that I've ever seen. Day of the Beast starts off with a string of blackly comic happenings, which see such things as a man crushed by a cross and a priest pushing a performer off his perch. Amazingly, the director manages to keep the laughs coming throughout, while at the same time ensuring that the apocalyptic tones aren't lost to the comedy side of the film. Personally, I didn't think that much else could be done with the idea of the antichrist - but I've been well and truly proved wrong by this totally unique horror flick! The plot follows a priest who believes that he has found a secret code of some sort, and that he has to commit evil acts in order to get an audience with Satan himself, so that he can kill the Devil's child, which he believes will be born on Christmas Eve. Aiding him in this quest is a drug-taking heavy metal fan, and the host of a paranormal TV series...

I've got to say that I'm really looking forward to seeing more of Álex de la Iglesia's films, as this guy has an absolutely great sense of humour; and even though this movie is only half a comedy, it's far funnier than many films designed only to make its audience laugh. The laughs are very dry indeed, and are guaranteed to appeal to people who appreciate jokes that are aimed at offending people. Aside from a great sense of humour and an interesting storyline, Day of the Beast also benefits from a plethora of great performances from a talented cast of Spanish actors. Álex Angulo, Armando De Razza and Santiago Segura are brilliant as the central threesome, and offset each other nicely with their defined and very different characters. While the film definitely is a comedy, it's obvious that Álex de la Iglesia is a horror fan; as the atmosphere is morbid and suspenseful, and many scenes are extremely suspenseful and well laid out. The special effects are hokey in true demonic horror style, and the light use of them ensures that they work well when used. Overall, I don't hesitate to call this a masterpiece. Day of the Beast is everything you could want from a cult horror movie and more!


While El Dia De La Bestia had some logic errors, such as easily finding a virgin at her late 20's, it was a good film overall. It's designed as a thriller-comedy so you can't expect everything to be perfectly logical anyway. The only film I've seen with a similar plot was The Devil's Advocate, and I have to say this one was a few million times better. It's time dear Americans see it takes not only expensive FX but also and more importantly soul to make a good film. Probably 99.9% of the spectators of the film didn't pay attention, but Maria Grazia Cuccinotta shines in the bimbo role more than any other part of the cast does. But the general cast is quite flawless too. I have to say there's some good music in the film also :) I don't care if it's associated with satan, it's still good to hear metal in films like this one. If you've watched and liked The Devil's Advocate, and just like me, you think the film seems to have everything necessary to be a good film but something's terribly missing, you'll see that missing thing is right in its place in El Dia De La Bestia. Brilliant comedy, brilliant thriller, absolutely unique. 9/10.


When you hear Spanish films, Aldomovar is always brought up. Unfortunately, films like Dia De La Bestia suffer. This film is a treat to people who like their comedy dark and have a weird sense of humour. The Apocalypse never looked more interesting than in this film. Visually the film is darkly lit and the appearance of Satan changes the whole mood of the film. Next time you see this film in a film festival, DON'T MISS IT!!!


On rare occasions, a movie appears that successfully mixes elements of comedy with those of horror without being silly, cheesy or vulgar. Alex De la Iglesia's superb "El Día de la Bestia" is definitely one of those movies.

With an interesting plot, very likable characters, good SFX(considering the low budget) and a great cast, this formidable movie from Spain turns instantly in a cult classic by it's own merits.

Alex Angulo stars as father Angel, a priest who is also a scholar of theology, and that has discovered that John's revelation contains encoded the date and place for the birth of the Antichrist: Christmas Eve of 1995 in Madrid. With that knowledge, he decides to turn himself into a satanist in order to discover the exact place of the birth. With the aid of metal-head Jose Maria(played by Santiago Segura) and the fake psychic Professor Cavas(played superbly by Armando De Razza), he goes on his quest to kill the baby before the anti-Christ's reign begins.

The story is filled with very dark humor as the priest has to sin in order for him to be convincing enough as a satanist. Alex Angulo really carries the film and gives a great performance, but is Armando De Razza who steals the show; Cavas and his girlfriend(played by beautiful Maria Grazia Cucinotta) have a great scene and Maria shines on her small role as the dumb blonde who dates Cavas.

De la Iglesia takes us on the roller-coaster that is this movie, as it never drags and goes on with a fast-paced rhythm. A great camera-work makes the film even better and the bizarre beauty of it's photography, contrasting the colorful Christmas with the dark gritty violence of the streets of Madrid.

Overall a near-perfect film, "El Día de la Bestia" will keep you entertained with it's irreverent(some would say blasphemous) dark humor.

10/10. Very recommended.


A complete cult film in Spain.

I think Alex is one of the most original talents in nowadays cinema. And not only in Spain, all over the world.

You have to realize what it means to issue such a film, and what a danger you take. How he uses black humour and keeps tension on every scene is incredible. And he has shown that in every one of his films, specially in The perfect crime (a pearl of how to use black humour), 800 bullets and Common Wealth. These are films to take with an open mind, no previous thoughts of what are you going to find. I'm still surprised at each one of his new films.

A masterpiece, but not a film for everybody.


As films like "Perdita Durango" prove, Spanish director Álex De La Iglesia is a specialist for macabre humor. One of his earlier films, "El Dia De La Bestia" aka. "The Day Of The Beast" of 1995 is a perfect example for this director's talent, a macabre and hilarious black horror comedy that entertains highly from the beginning to the end. A catholic priest (Álex Angulo) goes to Madrid in order to prevent the birth of the Antichrist, which he believes to take place there on Christmas Day. In order to find the exact place where the Antichrist is to be born, the kind-hearted priest is forced to commit 'Sins', and furthermore associates with the surprisingly friendly Death-Meal lover and Satanist Jose Maria (Santiago Segura)... Angulo and Segura both fit very well in their roles, especially Angulo is very hilarious as the priest. Armando De Razza is furthermore great, and hilarious as Cavan, a hypocritical TV psychic. Director De La Iglesia did a great job making this film a hilarious Horror-comedy and still maintaining a dark and somehow gloomy atmosphere. If you like satirical Horror, make sure not to miss "El Dia De La Bestia", and enjoy 100 minutes of macabre humor and originality. Highly Recommended!


Over a year ago I accidentally bought Day of the Beast off Ebay with no subs. Finally after a long wait I got the chance to check out this flick, and what a damn shame I wasn't more safe when buying it the first time, because this was a really good flick.

El Dia De La Bestia is a comedy/horror/action hybrid that really meshes on a level that few movies have. It's Xmas Eve and a Priest, Metalhead and a TV Host band together to try stop the Anti-Christ from being born. Sounds like the beginning of a joke, but it's the truth and these guys go through some ridiculous stuff trying to accomplish their goal. The acting, cinematography, directing and especially the screen play were all great. The writing was fast, realistic and smart, just like how the movie played out. Day of the Beast has barely has any dull scenes, it's funny, and moves at a pretty fast pace. I suppose it's not gonna be everyone's cup of tea, but hell, for me, there's nothing in it worth complaining about.

I really hope this film gets more popular, because it definitely has the opportunity to have a large fan base. Hopefully someday it will get some more recognition and you'll be seeing it in Best Buys and so on. And the best part is the director has many more flicks that are supposed to be just as good. If you're looking for a plain old good flick, look no further, Day of the Beast is it.


El Día de la bestia follows the fortunes of a simplistic Basque priest; he's discovered the date of the arrival of the Antichrist and journeys to Madrid on a mission to do as much evil as possible in order to get to the Devil and ascertain as to where the Satan-Child will be spawned. Is that the coolest plot synopsis ever or what? Thus begins a devilishly funny farce of Biblical proportions as poor Father Ángel ambles through the film (very well-directed by Álex de la Iglesia) attempting to invoke Beelzebub and avert the oncoming apocalypse.

As the film goes on, Father Ángel (Álex Angulo) teams up with a TV pseudo-psychic and a lardy layabout metalhead whilst committing a series of supremely comic sinful activities (pushing a mime artist down a stairwell, telling a dying man he's going to hell, etc.). The scene where the motley crew of misfits try to construct and makeshift pentacle and perform the satanic ritual is excellent. But the LSD consumed during this effort for invocation is what confuses and confounds the movie in the end. Does the plucky preacher defeat the Antichrist at the end, or is it just a hallucinatory vision brought on by the drugs he's dropped? If the latter is the true turn of events, then the movie is heartbreaking. It's open to interpretation, but the ending suggests that the ultimate assault on the Antichrist is actually an intoxicated attack on some tramps who aren't of Hellish origin.

Regardless of climactic confusion, El Día de la bestia (The Day of the Beast in English) is dragged down through the fact it runs out of steam as it runs up to the grand finale anyway. For the most part though, the film is fantastic: a cult occult-thriller full of brilliant black comedy, delightfully dumb characters and a surreal storyline that successfully merges horror movie with social-commentary in its swipes at the sorry state of modernised Madrid and neo-Nazi thuggery. Not perfect, but definitely unusual, unique and appealing: El Día de la bestia is one hell of a film.


Father Angel is a priest and a professor at a small university in Spain, and he's discovered that the Antichrist will be born in Madrid on December 25th so he's off to Madrid to commit all the sin he can to get as close to the un-blessed event as possible, to prevent it. Along the way he manages to pick up a a couple of cohorts, one being a rather dim-witted metal-head who works at a record store, the other being a TV talk show host that pretends to predict the future. Now, Father Angel is sincere in his quest but he also seems a bit naive and sees signs that are perhaps other than he thinks they are, but somehow, with his partners along, despite all the bumbling, it certainly does seem like he's on to something. A summoning is done, using available things like white bread instead of hosts and LSD instead of the preferred mushrooms, and a rather hurried search for virgin's blood also ensues. Meanwhile there's also a gang of creeps out to "Clean Up Madrid" by burning bums and all kinds of other festive goings-on. Of course, despite all his bumbling, Father Angel is perhaps correct, but it's a break-neck race to the finish to find the correct location of the birth and plot side-lines and the main story all collide at once to make a rather spectacular ending and then a rather quiet epilogue. This is at times quite hilarious in a dark comedic way, and Santiago Segura is great as the dim-bulb metal-head. If you're a fan of De La Iglesia and you haven't seen this, please get your mitts on it. Unfortunately it's not available in NTSC Region 1 (or 0) format at this time but given that most of his other stuff is, one can only hope for a decent release sometime soon. 9 out of 10.


DAY OF THE BEAST is a film that I've had in my possession for quite a while but just never got around to. Thanks to the prompting of a few adamant friends, I finally threw this one in. Having only seen de la Iglesia's ACCION MUTANTE (which I wasn't a real big fan of...) and PERDITA DURANGO (aka DANCE WITH THE DEVIL - which I did like very much...) I wasn't sure what I was in for with DAY OF THE BEAST. I must say that although flawed, it is one of the better horror/comedy hybrids that I've ever seen.

It's Christmas-time, and a priest has learned through his studies the day of the anti-Christ's birth. His goal is to invoke the Devil by performing whatever bits of Satanic mayhem he can in order to eventually "realize" his goal of summoning Satan and killing his spawn. In his quest, the holy-man calls upon the knowledge of a death-metal obsessed record-store clerk, and a cheezy talk-show host to further his cause...

A truly funny and well-made production - DAY OF THE BEAST is a fun and twisted black-comedy that should appeal to most horror fans. It's not a graphically gory or sleazy film - but the solid performances, excellent camera-work and solid story-line should keep your interest. The ending is a big anti-climactic which was the only real drawback to me. An otherwise great film that should be at the top of your list...8.5/10


This interesting film from Spanish director De la Iglesia is a road trip that is fun and action packed, as it is obscure. A great premise taken to the extreme, in which a servant of god, has to get in touch with the evil side, in order to save the world. The comic relief comes in Chema, a rock-store clerk, who, along this priest takes this trip to it's ultimate consequences.


A Catholic priest and theologian, Father Cura, believes that he has discovered through numerical values in the bible, the exact date of the birth of the anti Christ. Believing the only way to stop this happening, is to become evil himself by doing evil deeds, he sets off on a pilgrimage around Madrid looking for a sign that will direct him in the right direction. He teams up with a Death Metal shop assistant and a TV host of a phoney paranormal show to make his meeting with Satan come about. Day of the Beast is a hotch potch of ideas that in all truth shouldn't work at all, but de la Iglesia's excellent script and dark sense of humour guides this hybrid film into the realms of a real classic. It delivers in spades in every department, the three main performances are exceptional and they spark of each other to perfection. The opening sequence is pure slapstick you might expect from someone like Benny Hill, but it sets the tone perfectly for what follows, a comedy masterpiece, that also delivers on suspense and horror


The Spanish cinema is often overlooked and under-appreciated. Yet a tradition of Spanish cinema has brought to us so much wimsycal treatment of traditional subjects, including religion (a reaction to a strict religious conservative tradition). A truly great film in the post-apocolyptic setting in the modern-day Madrid. As a student of Almodovar, De Iglesias has done his homework.


I loved this movie.

**** Spoilers below ************

It has the the supernatural going on all around while no one can see it. Is it really happening or are they hallucinating? A priest with a number running around high on LSD and virgin's blood.

The play on all the popular satanic subcultures was funny. A priest, trying to do evil like an amateur and then getting beat up at a death metal show. Drug guzzling death metal loser who lives with his mom saving him at every turn, not to save the world, just hanging with his new pal.

It made me laugh while keeping me on the edge of my seat the whole time.


Hello dude, salute from the Glorious Germen's cine club. This movie is like a dream come true, or a nightmare come true, its phenomenal and very very very españolada. You can see in this master piece the vision of Alex about de Armageddon (a very bad movie, don't see it), this vision its a latin vision, whit no heros, no muscle guy beating Satan, no, this movie it's about a priest who discover the day and the place where the evil will come, and whit the help of a fat heavy metal and a false exorciser tv showman KILL A BABY, a baby named Satan. This movie have a very goods gags, like the priest killing her friend family by error, and others. This movie it's excellent. Good bye and good killing.


I had never heard of this before, I didn't read reviews or thoughts or anything about this movie and I didn't even read the small texts on the cover of the box...This could have gone very wrong but instead of that it became 100 minutes of pure fun. So, now I'll do my best to recommend it to as many other people as possible. "El dia de la Bestia" was made in Spain, or the new great home of horror these days. Spanish directors proved themselves a lot lately and I think this guy, Alex De La Iglesia , deserves some extra credit. This guy obviously is a big lover of horror and the whole cult atmosphere around it. In a genius kind of way, he mixes a lot of appropriate elements in his movie like heavy metal music and fortune-telling. Angél is a priest who just translated a disturbing writing. He found out that the Antichrist himself will be born on Christmas day of 1995. In Madrid, because all the signs of apocalypse looks like it. To avoid this horrible event that would mean the end of the world, he has to face Satan himself. So, he travels to Madrid and commits a lot of sins, which is pretty funny to watch. He meets a heavy-metal freak (sorry : Death Metal!) and a fortune-teller who fooled many people by faking an exorcism. But when all preparations are set, Satan doesn't show up ! Did they make a mistake ? One thing is certain, they have to hurry because Christmas is only one night away... It wouldn't do much if I named all the actors of this movie because their names don't ring a bell. But, I can say they're all very good actors and they clearly did their best work in this film. Like I said before, this film contains a lot of humor but it never spoofs the genre. There's always a lot of respect present and I think that's a great achievement. Also, I would have thought there was a lot more gore in this film. To my surprise, the gory scenes are very limited and overall short. Gorehounds be advised because the cover and the title may make you think it's one big blood fest. Good film, nice change, great fun...highly recommended if you need a break from all the typical nowadays slasher-films.


"El Día de la Bestia" is a transcendental movie, maybe that important that it's hard to admit that it started a revolution. To begin with, Spanish Horror cinema is one before and after this movie.

Let's think about the same situation that happened with "Evil Dead". This film is a diabolical mix of black humor, gore, a scary plot, plenty of action, and a look of a comic book.

With the aforementioned description, it seems that the film shouldn't be taken seriously because most of the mentioned elements make a hint to black humor cinema. But the movie doesn't concentrates specifically on any of those aspects; no, it follows an intense pace with the purpose of solving a sinister plot through black humor and horror. It executes those elements as complements without keeping in mind it's objective.

We got scenes of black humor that tend to be cruel, hilarious, and sinister. For example, the giant cross crushing a priest. Or what about the priest chasing Jose Mari's sister and dispatching his mother? The scenes with most tension and terror deal with the satanic ritual where a black goat appears and when the devil makes a terrifying appearance (standing up confronting José Mari and throwing him out of the tower and then confronting the priest) I understand now how "Drag Me To Hell" got inspired in the use of shadows and the talking goat. You saw it first here! ;) The on-screen duo conformed by the priest and José Mari is hilarious and gives you an idea of a very sui-generis friendship based on religious obsession, heavy metal, insane dialogs, and more.

The dialogs have a little for something. For some moments the demonic references may creep you about because most of them are very accurate. Other moments will make you laugh out loud mainly because of the irreverences of the crazed priest and José Mari, or because of their physical humor (it plays an important part).

But those elements couldn't be accomplished without a talented cast. The three principal actors were born for their roles. Álex Angulo delivers a comedic, creepy performance filled with anxiety but conviction to follow his ideals. He is in charge to change the pace of the movie when it reaches levels of surrealism. Armando De Razza is perfect and believable as Professor Cavan, a charlatan in disguise who enjoys making money and success (and hot women) through the ingenuity of the audience. A versatile actor. Santiago Segura becomes an instant favorite of the audience as the loyally obsessed partner of the priest. He delivers the perfect dosis of humor and with his heavy metal knowledge he gives you an idea of how irreverent he is.

Special mention for the extreme hottie María Grazia Ciconotta. Wow, she is very hot, extremely sexy. And those are real ;) The score is great. The movie has an official soundtrack with songs of heavy metal, rap, hip-hop.

The Direction by Alex de la Iglesia is spectacular, great. We got dynamic sequences, other elegant takes that need a high budget, and the movie always looks dynamic, radiant. The world never looked this dark before the Apocalypsis.

The Cinematography and Art Direction is perfect. Just very rich and dark.

This is a prime example of black humor, horror, and quality. Other films like these? I can only think about "Evil Dead", "Drag Me To Hell", and "Mucha Sangre". The word "cool" better describes this movie.

To sum it up, this movie is an entertainment production, it's funny, and rough for any Horror fan. It's a black comedy that should please any fanatic of Horror.


I first saw this movie in the classroom during Spanish lessons (in Spain). So this was the first movie in Spanish that I fully understood. I was in my 20's then and it really appealed to me. It's a great trip we make alongside a priest on his way to confront the devil. We get to meet a lot of strange characters and we get to witness some really violent scenes.It's got a good soundtrack (very heavy). It's my guess that if you're into Tarantino/Rodriguez movies, Cheech & Chong stuff and (violent) cartoons that you'll like this one too. I loved seeing it. I went through quite some trouble getting it on DVD. Now I can watch it whenever I want. Thank U very much.


But unfortunately only somewhat. In trying to be horrific and funny, the movie stays squarely in the middle of both without really succeeding in either. A few scenes stand out, especially in the beginning when the priest begins trying to turn evil, and at the end with the appearance of Satan, but the middle section of the movie simply does not go far enough to really be satisfying. Well worth watching, mostly since I doubt we'll see anything like this again, but don't go into it with high expectations.


I thought this was a very well done movie even though it had one of those disjointed plots that are so common with European flicks,(the ending had me totally confused). I thought that the dubbing was well done and the movie was quite nice to look at. There was also a death scene that came right out of nowhere and kind of reminded me of something out of a Dario Argento film. I would give this movie 3 stars. ***


This movie is a classic example of a great idea suffering from low budget. It is like a B-movie by Tarantino. Or Kevin Smith maybe. Or a crossover of both meeting a film by John Carpenter. This is definitively a B-movie of some sorts, but a well-made one.

The whole thing is a bit strange (which in my opinion is not a bad thing), and the characters are... well, unusual. And the story has a nice twist to it. Many, many good ideas, although violence and humor are not always too well-balanced: sometimes they simply clash. But at the end, it works quite nicely. Don't mind the few gaping holes in the plot, just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.


Many people complaints about the ending of "El día de la Bestia", most of them are north Americans, used to no-thinking Hollywood plots/endings.

Well, for all of you from me, with love: If you look with attention, you'll notice all over the movie a group of racists who kill homeless and foreigners.

Those are the "devil's henchmen" (one of them the "devil" himself) It's a metaphor, WE (human race) are the "antichrist", there are not supernatural entities such as gods or devils, certain human behaviour is what father Berriortua ends finding as the "devil" Regards


I'm all for a nice bit of blasphemy, but sometimes that just isn't enough to make a good movie!

During the first half of EL DIA DE LA BESTIA I thought this was shaping up to be a fantastic film. There are some funny scenes with the priest who must summon satan and his unlikely side-kick, a heavy metal stoner. But before long the plot starts to unravel until, by the time we get to the climax, it is effectively meaningless.

Alex De La Iglesia has made some good films (particularly La Communidad) but this is not one of his best. The lack of a coherent plot overshadows the movies merits and makes this an unsatisfying watch. Perhaps if the script had been given a few months more attention it would have been an excellent film.

3/10


good movie, although sometimes its hard to see the subtitles. the movie is about a priest who finds a secret message in the book of revelation, the day the anti-christ will be born. this movie is well paced and interesting. this movies interpretation of the devil is that of baphomet, a god the templar knights worshipped that priests accused of being the devil, though adapted by satanists to be used as the devil (search on the internet for baphomet and you can find a picture) throughout the movie alot of cult sybols are shown such as the pentagram and the eye of horus, showing that the director did at least a bit of research, they also mention a few bands at the beginning, one of them being iron maiden, and they play with the belief that a record played backwards can contain secret messages, but kind of mock it.anyway i would recommend this film to anyone interested in horror/mock horror/ or movies about the apocalypse/satan. the only problem i have with this movie is the ending is too clear for this kind of movie, it should have left the audience thinking about what happened.


Great movie with a pretty s****y ending I must say. During all the movie you´ve been looking forward til the end when the devil will appear and it´ll be a hell of a fight. And what do you get, 1 shot and over !? That was very lame... But all the other things was super cool, that´s for sure. Could be a 10 if it lasted all the way, too bad it didn´t.

But it gets 8.5 anyway.


To tell the truth, I nearly did not bother with this one; to tell the truth it's all the same anyway; I gave up on Perdita Durango, haven´t bothered much with other titles by this very singular Basque director, but have at last sat through an entire film.

Using satire to the nth degree, even going to the extremes of including a take-off of `the Exorcist', `El Día de La Bestía' is a mixture of horror, comedy and spoof, and most definitely a cock in the snout at anyone remotely religious. Rolling along at an intrepid pace, the film is an insight into what a feverish mind and overheated imagination can cook up. I mean, the story is impossible, but that is the magic of cinema...........isn't it?

Anyway, everyone is rather round the bend, off his rocker or stark, staring bonkers as we British youngsters used to say near half a century ago. Whilst unravelling Amharic scrawls the Right Reverend Father Ángel Beriartúa discovers that the antichrist will be born on Christmas Day in Madrid. From there to a blood-letting search of the most bizarre in which all kinds of weird goings-on are coming off, normally at hell-bent speed, which is probably where everyone should end up anyway, the film is a debauch into trivial skylarks, heavily dosed up with all the gruesome products of horror and perversity liberally mixed into a comical cocktail of doubtful parentage.

What I cannot fathom is how they managed to get Maria Grazia Cucinotta to fall down those stairs so spectacularly, without any parts of her anatomy plopping out of that dress...............

If you like this kind of nonsensical black humour, I suggest you give `Airbag' (1997) (qv) by the also Basque director Juanma Bajo Ulloa a try.


confused writing and direction wastes a promising plot, that would have played better were the sinister not larded with comedy & a banal depiction of the effects of LSD. the muddle that results has the forces of evil (a gang of vigilantes) without irony kill the anti-christ, and a few late-night benders sorting out the symbolism (and on the cutting floor finding a pace) would have done the film a world of good. entertaining; but lost within it was the potential for much more.


I somehow expected this movie to be hard and dark, but it turned out to be a comedy, which seriously lacks humour. Therefore the bestial scenes of the movie are terrible, with the antichirist at the end, and so is the humour which just can't make you laugh.

If you like to watch a confused priest, who wants to act funny and prevent the apocalypse to happen then maybe this is your movie, but definitely not the movie for me :P My personal opinion is that this movie really sux, and i had to write that down, because i saw the ratings here on the movie and expected something good.

BTW: I also know the heavy metal scene in Madrid and death metal concerts never looked like this! :D


From beginning to end, this movie is a dark portrayal of youth of today. It opens with the perfect introductions to our characters; the loner, anti-authority focus of our lead's fascination and the obviously small world of Ben, for whom the story is told. From the moment he lays eyes on Grant, you can see the longing in Ben's eyes. The very need to watch every movement is reminiscent of those crushes that most gay men go through as teenagers. Even as his friends warn him from the path he's following, Ben cannot help himself. It was up until this point that the movie was perfect. I felt it lost a point for the ending, which even though I had a feeling was coming to some extent, was still disappointing. I had hoped that it would only end up with Ben falling in with Grant's crowd of under-achieving slackers, but instead it brought us back in time to when all stories about gay people ended in misery. Over-all, it is still a great movie, which is why I wasn't willing to dock too many points for my own disappointment.


I got a chance to see this at CineVegas this year and I have to say I was very impressed.

The performances all around were well executed with a standout job by Josh Barclay Caras as Ben. He delivered a subtle performance that embodies the uncertainty of youth, coupled with the desire to fit in and find connection.

Writer/Director Carter Smith creates such a wonderfully dark and heavy atmosphere throughout the film. He really does an excellent job of creating a sense of foreboding in unique and original ways.

This is definitely a film worth seeing if you get a chance to do so.


What an impressive film debut for Carter Smith. Based on a short story by Steven Treleaven about a high school loner who is attracted to a mysterious new comer. He follows him to a remote farm with chilling results. This is a scary movie and ominous metaphor for the dangers of sexual experimentation.

Smith works wonders in creating foreboding and eroticism in the possibilities of the dark of night. The production values and acting are all uniformly excellent. Carter Smith has a real talent and is to be looked forward to in his upcoming projects. It makes perfect sense that he is developing a screenplay with cult writer, Dennis Cooper. This is no J.T. Leroy, Carter Smith is the genuine thing and in the best of horror, He reminds me too of H.P. Lovecraft, and the best short fiction of Stephen King and the noir-ish writings of Black Cat magazine.

I can't wait to see what he does next.


I watched 'bugcrush' last night and had such mixed feelings about it. I went online tonight and tried to find the short story by Scott Treleaven. It was one of the gay horror stories in Queer Fear 2 published in 2003. I was surprised by a few of the overly negative comments posted here. Yes, I was a little shocked and disturbed by the ending of the story, but it was a horror story. How many horror stories have we seen using the same seductions and with the same outcome. As a gay man I must have a thicker skin than most. I was spellbound by the direction. The acting was good and sometimes better than good. I had to re-watch the ending several times to come to grips with what just happen. Looking back in the story I realized that the author/director had warned us several times of the coming doom. How many of us have been lured by the danger in the quest for fulfillment. A lesson for all who take the risk with expectations of delight.


The short story that BUGCRUSH is based on was originally written by the artist/filmmaker Scott Treleaven (not Steve). The story, which is also entitled 'Bugcrush', originally appeared in the horror anthology 'QUEER FEAR 2', edited by horror writer/essayist Michael Rowe, and was published by Arsenal Pulp Press (2003). The film follows the story very accurately, creating the same kind of lingering threat of sexual violence/fulfillment, and using a lot of the stilted, crushed-out teen dialog that made the story so effective. Although he's mostly known as a visual artist, Treleaven also wrote, and directed, the cult films QUEERCORE (1996), and THE SALIVATION ARMY (2002), as well as a number of other scripts and stories.


Saw it on LOGO last night. Foreboding, but not with that kind of constant tension that is so taxing about thrillers generally. I kept wondering if things were going to turn out well or not. Take a few steps down the story, things are looking up; then a another and they gets spooky again. The mix of sex, danger, longing, and uncertainty was just perfect. The acting, directing, and execution were really well done. I can't remember a time I was so engrossed in a film. It was like I was in the shoes of the main character- asking myself his questions, sensing his feeling, and, oddly, making his choices. Remarkable.

I'm surprised by some of the criticism written on here. I guess if you demand that LGBT films provide some kind of cheerful morality tale or insist that every movie with LGBT characters must have some universal gay community message, you'll be disappointed with what you get with this film.

But if you take it on it's terms, leave your baggage at the door, and just go along with the ride, it's just so well done you can't help but be swept up in it.


Awful short. It's about this gay high school kid who's attracted to a new kid in the school. The new kid is tall, smokes and is in good shape. The new kid invites him to his house (in the middle of nowhere) one night and thinks just turn dark and ugly.

Seriously WHAT is this about? I have no problem with dark movies but a coherent plot would be nice too! The film is shot in a fragmented style that makes what little plot the film has hard to follow. It SEEMS to be saying something totally negative about being gay and being attracted to the wrong guy--that's all I could get out of it. It ends like a horror movie--a bad one. The acting is (I suppose) good--it's really hard to tell do to the awful dialogue and directing. A sick, disturbing and ultimately pointless short. Skip it.


I'm on the short subject selection committee for a film festival and just screened this with the committee last night. When the film was over there was silence in the room... What can you say about a film that is so thoroughly sickening and disturbing? This was NOT a condemnation of date rape--if it had been, it might have had a reason to exist. But, no... not only did the filmmaker choose to depict gay date rape between minors, he lovingly reveled in the acts of the rapist. All you people who loved the film watch it again and pay attention to the director's choices... every shot is meant to make the viewer identify with the rapist. You can say all you want about the directorial style and the technical proficiency of the film, it doesn't matter. What kind of person wakes up one day and says, "I really NEED to make a film about the sickest, most perverted sexual crime I can imagine?" This film is completely vile.


I saw Bugcrush this evening as a part of the Palm Springs Short Film Festival. It was the final movie in the series of gay shorts, with the other movies (for the most part) being funny & interesting. This was the last movie - and was dark, disturbing, grotesque, and bizarre. Perhaps if I was prepared for a creepy, scary movie I would have enjoyed it - but I gasped in all the same parts that the rest of the sold-out gay crowd did. When the Q&A's came at the end, more than half the crowd got up and left, saying things like "Let's get out of here, so I don't have to hear anything about Bugcrush." Of the eight movies shown, Bugcrush was the most memorable - but not in a good way. If that was the point of the movie - it succeeded.


Without a doubt, this low budget movie is cool and has its moments. The story is dim and unreliable but the action is OK. The set of the film is almost shot inside a house.

There lives a hot girl called Gail, and if you, common mortal man, got fascinated for her body, no wonder the bad spirits/bad angels hasn't got too.

There's plenty of seductive actions made involuntarily by Gail towards her sister's husband. There's hot/sensual scenes. There's good Special Effects. There's a fair dose of acting in all that but you cannot say this is a good or extraordinary flick.

The director tries to rush to the action/sensual or erotic scenes. There's no cornerstone to substantiate the whole story. You're led to the basic: Demon exorcism, swearing, erotic moves and decadence in one jovial teenage.

I can say: Give it a try.


I have probably seen every horror movie from excellent FX and totally stupid to low budget and actually good. Well, this is one of those low budget but and actually good. I have read many comments and a lot of complaints about the acting. No one is going to win an academy award, but the actors did a good job considering that the sound was probably not the best in the world and they were having to speak louder, which makes the acting not as good as it should be. I think if this movie had a descent budget it could have been actually really good. It was good considering the obstacles the actors had to go through and it was a good attempt to try to try a new idea.

All in all, I would definitely recommend this movie. The nudity was not as bad as in many soap operas I have seen and the talk was not near as bad as the Exorcist or any stupid male bonding movie. I have heard worse.


I can't believe people did not like this movie. It had its share of scary moments, above average acting, and the story line flowed pretty well. 4.0 at its current rating on IMDb as I'm writing this comment, is much too low for this movie, and I would encourage anyone that has not seen this movie to check it out. Oh and did I mention the girls in this flick are totally hot. Please don't be fooled by these people that are more or less dissing this movie. I know a few people that enjoyed this much more then The Exorcism of Emily Rose (which is another way underrated horror/Drama movie) I found this movie at my local Hollywood Video store, and hopefully you won't have too much trouble finding it. With so many horrible b rated movies out there crowding the video shelf, you won't be to disappointed by picking this one up.


I picked this DVD up at Hollywood Video with some hesitation. I truly enjoy the genre but have seen some much less than good "Exorcist" ripoffs. Not only was I surprised to find this one entertaining...but I enjoyed it a heckuva a lot more than "Emily Rose"! The film makers took a low budget and worked extremely well within those confines, finding innovative ways to create "demonic possession" type F/X resulting in a truly entertainingly frightening little film! This film delivers a series of good old fashioned exploitation shock effects as opposed to lengthy boring dialogue sequences followed by a mediocre "bang" for your four bucks. The Asylm Video company is consistently releasing better and better direct to DVD fare, many of which eclipse the lackluster theatrical releases that these lower budget films are counterparts to. I only wish that I'd seen this one sooner...as it would have made great Halloween party movie entertainment!


For a low budget horror, this movie rocks... up until the last half hour which comprises itself of the exorcism chapter of the film, which everything is in essence, building up to. We know it's coming, we expect it to blow your socks off, but it just doesn't.

You've got all the staple food of a spine chilling low budget horror.

Simple effects used correctly really make your budget work for you. Dario Argento would be proud. The growl when Gail turns her head is a sweet sound byte, I think I'll use that for my "You've Got Mail" wav for GMail.

When Gail looks in the mirror, walks away and her reflection stays there smiling at her I thought, hell yeah that's a cool gimmick.

Gratuitous nudity is something directors are so afraid of these days, but with a straight to video release one doesn't have to worry so much about ratings, and like the MC from Cabaret would exclaim, these girls are hot, hot, hot! But, that's not enough to make a film other than a porn so we have to put that aside, and get scrutinizing, it has to be done, or as a movie reviewer I simply am not doing a very good job.

I'm fairly certain there is no such ritual as the Rite of Abraham in this capacity as the Rite of Abraham actually refers to the act of circumcision. (SEPHER YEZIRAH Chaper 1:2) The place this movie fails in my opinion is two-fold.

The blind priest doesn't look the part. He lacked the depth demanded by the part. He looks too young, and the intensity is simply not there. Also the demon is in a word; unimpressive.

I cringed when they blatantly ripped off The Exorcist and Stigmata and actually laughed during the exorcism. The finale which consisted of the exorcism, or last half hour were just terrible.

It's like the movie was hopeful for the first half but culminated in a complete meltdown at the end.

Really it started out as a decent 6, but melted down into a 2... 3 since I'm feeling generous.


This is a good low budget straight-forward exorcism movie. Low budget movies have improved considerably recently and this movie shows it. It looks good, has some good special effects and a decent story. The acting is excellent all around with fresh and realistic dialogue. The lovely Erica Roby is a revelation in the role of the possessed Gail. She is such a natural beauty. The movie hinges on her performance and she does a fine job in representing the various stages of a tormented teen girl. The various priests as well as the psychiatrist also do a good acting job. This movie is surprisingly entertaining considering the limitations in filming almost the entire movie in a house. Definitely worth a look.


We rented this movie because we were looking for something scary to watch, I had seen The Exorcist before so this movie looked like it would work. It was just as creepy as The Exorcist if not more!

Some of the scenes in this movie are so shocking, its perfect if you are looking for a movie to watch in the dark and want to get scared! The screams that come out of the people in the movie are bloodcurdling, especially the older sister when she sees what is happening to her younger sister as the possession takes hold of her... it gives you chills!

The make-up was really well done, we sat there and saw blood spurting from people and eyes getting gouged out, but it looks realistic enough to where you don't sit there and think about it being fake -- all you think about is how gross and scary it all is...

Definitely a movie to rent if you want to get creeped out!


OK I have seen all the horror movies ever made so on that basis, this exorcism is better than expected. I admit I did not like Emily Rose much so I watched this one with a preconception that it was just another boring Exorcist movie as I found all the sequels were pretty lame compared to the original. I was pleasantly surprised. The casting was great because the main actress does a good job acting and her eye shadow gives her a scary look. 2005 was a great year for horror movies and while this one would not be as good as Skeleton Key and story not as good as Death Tunnel, it sure starts 2006 on a good note. I enjoyed this one much more than the Fog 2005 because I fast forwarded through most of that one and that one is successful only because it is a remake and it had popular actors/actresses. Gail bowers on the other hand features unknown actors and actresses which made it much more fresh and enjoyable.


After psychiatrists fail to offer any real solution for what is causing Gail's problems (one even recommends calling the priests), the family is forced to turn to the church and an exorcism is quickly ordered. With few priest having any real experience in dealing with the possessed, the church turns to Father Thomas  a priest who we meet early in the film when an exorcism goes very bad leaving him blind. Shouting every prayer known to man, Father Thomas and two other priests confront the demons inside Gail and a major battle between good and evil takes up the rest of the film.

Although the movie's plot has been done before (lets face it, nothing is ever going to live up to The Exorcist), Scott's own love for the horror genre makes this movie just fun. He has mastered what it takes to make a good horror film on a tight budget and shows his own knowledge of horror in this movie.

The movie has touches of The Entity (such as when Gail is being visited at night); Stigmata (when Gail forms a cross and starts bleeding from her hands and feet); White Noise (when Gail sees ghostly images in the television) and naturally The Exorcist. Scott also has the movie go "low tech" with practically no computer generated effects (like what was used in King of the Lost World) or actors running around in creature suits (like Beast of Bray Road or Frankenstein Reborn). Instead, the film has quick edits of things jumping out at you, something quickly walking by the camera, and some great facial expressions from Roby  when that girl screams it is down right creepy.


I though this was a pretty cool movie out the Asylum films. I have seen Frankenstien, Beast of Bray Road, and King of the Lost World,and War of the Worlds as well. I know Mr. Scott directed some of them and I do have to say this is the best one yet! The blurry feel gives such an old school look to it. I usually never comment of films at all but this one I felt needed a boost! The two female leads I thought really did a great job,Yeah, and there both hot, but the sex scene was so believable, and were good at their parts.Of course nothing will ever beat the Exorcist because it rocked, however this one held its own. I cant wait until the next Asylum film


As far as the film industry goes. Most A list actors are way over paid, and the movies for the budget, are only OK. I am not saying this movie is Oscar material! However, for the most part The acting is SOLID. The Director is great for what money he has to work with.

Now lets talk about the film! The beginning I liked the no sound and just music at first I thought there was a sound problem and I kept turning the sound up and realized it was all action! Very cool! Nice choice by the editor.

As far as the set up of the film the consistencies were a little shaky, but I am sure that is a budget thing. I liked the music it really set up the mood.

As far as the Cast Gail Bowers (Erica Roby) does a great job as the possessed girl and lead in the film? Anne Bowers(Noel Thurman) as the sister is beautiful, and is probably one of the most solid actors in the film, as well as Thomas Downey as the priest! The rest of the cast holds there own. So all in all this film blows Emily Rose away. I am only judging this film based on a straight to DVD, they have done a good job!


This movie is, a very low, ALL-RIGHT. I saw it once, and it barely kept my attention. It wasn't very scary or weird, like exorcism movie ought to be like. The exorcist is a masterpiece. As far I am concerned, there are only two good exorcism movies, the original one, and the new "The Exorcism of Emily Rose". This one, although better than a lot of the other garbage out there about exorcism, is not nearly on the level of either of the two other movies I mentioned above. The girl does a pretty good job acting it out. However, it is not nearly good enough to be scary. The move wasn't all that well acted either. It just did not capture my interest.


This title doesn't bother to come up with its own ideas, it just steals them all from one of the best horror movies of all time and adds a bit more sex. Most movies take ideas from other films, but not 3/4 of a superior film to which they will be compared unfavourably.

Acting and special effects are as to be expected of a low budget production, but while those can be forgiven, the lack of any originality can't. I'm sorry there was one original idea but it was so laughable it barely counts. A blind exorcist in sunglasses that make him look more like a biker than a priest. "Yeah I'm a bad ass priest, not like those other little pussy priests who couldn't drive a demon out of a wet paper bag."


Death has never been this young and sexy. When this film opened this weekend I had never heard of it nor seen a preview or read a review. At the multiplex this film opened at the smallest screen and the girl in the ticket booth told me they had not jet received the posters for the film But opt to show it anyway. The title starred at me blankly from the cinema monitor and the words" possessed" and "exorcism" appealed more to me then Brock back Mountain. This movie starts of with a priest performing and exorcism on a Hispanic girl that somehow had turned into a demon African American witch later makes the priest claw is own eyes out. The exorcism was a success but rendered him blind. The movie continues with a young girl played by sexy lead young adult with a dirty mount like your would not believe, moving to Florida with her sister and her husband due to the double death of her parents. For no apparent reason she becomes possessed spending all her time in her room-the garage, lingering, plotting , watching TV and sending her new slut friend to her grave. Various believable doctors try their best to pin a diagnose on her ether wanting to go with possession or latent massive depression. During this the movie builds up to a massive climax. The demon possessing this young girl Goes completely bananas and a horde of priest comes to her rescue, including the priest form the intro, now blind, but full of hope and anger towards the demons walking this earth in human forms, performing an exorcism that lead to their final hour falling pray to the angry demon within. What to say about this film?? I was not expecting a blockbuster at the multiplex that Friday, but I found it more entertaining the The Fog(2005) but not on the same planet as Emily Rose. It was shot in digital with a very porno film quality and sets, with terrible editing and poor directing, weak actors but beautiful female leads. It some what surprises me what goes as movies these days?


Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers starts six weeks after the death of teenager Gail Bowers (Erica Roby) mom & dad as she moves to a new home in a new state with her now legal guardians her older sister Anne (Noel Thurman) & her husband Clark Pederson (Griff Furst). At first things seem alright but that that doesn't last for long as Gail begins to change, she starts to sleepwalk, talk in ancient Latin, her voice suddenly becomes very deep, she spouts obscenities & begins to undergo a dramatic & horrifying change of personality. Anne & Clark call in a shrink, Dr. Richard Thornhill (David Shick) who quickly comes to the realisation that Gail is possessed by a demon, as you would. Thornhill approaches the Church & ask's for help in performing an exorcism, the only thing he believes that can save Gail...

Written & directed by low budget horror regular Leigh Scott this is yet another 'mockbuster' rip-off which obviously takes it's inspiration & title from The Exorcist (1973) & to a lesser extent The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) from The Asylum who specialise in this sort of cheap low budget horror themed cash-on of big budget Hollywood flicks. I must admit I think The Asylum make some of the worst films out there, do they even try to make good films? They seem to have this formula where they rip some well known film off with a catchy & familiar sounding title, try to include maybe one or two has-been actors for name value & try to include one or two sequences that will look good in a trailer & they just stick to it. Not wishing to sound too unkind the majority of their output is absolutely dreadful both technically & conceptually. Anyway, Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers doesn't buck the trend & this is one long, dull, boring, predictable & tedious rip-off of The Exorcist, that really is the best way to describe it. The possessed teenage girl trapped in her room & tied to her bed, an early scene with a Ouija board, frantic parents seeking help first from doctor's & then priest's, the final climatic exorcism which is so badly written & handled it's untrue & a few of the notorious trademark scenes from The Exorcist are clearly replicated here such as the spider walk (quite literally here as Gail walks up a wall), speaking in an ancient language, lots of unintentionally funny porno dialogue as Gail spouts various obscenities & of course the final exorcism itself which is performed by a priest wearing sunglasses! The whole film is misjudged, it goes from being unintentionally hilarious to being unintentionally awful to unintentionally boring, or at least I hope it was unintentional. Character's, dialogue & the plot are all well below average as is the film as a whole.

If you were to look in the bathroom mirror & see strips of your flesh peeling from your face what would you do? Think about it for a moment. Right I doubt very much that anyone reading this would have thought to themselves 'undress & take a shower' but that's precisely what one teenage girl decides to do in this. Yes that's right, after seeing the skin on her face literally fall off she takes her clothes off (gratuitous breast shot included) & takes a shower. Does that make any sort of sense to anyone? The gore is tame, there's a bit of blood, scissors stuck in someones shoulder, a stabbing or two & that's about it. There's not too much GCI here thankfully. I was extremely surprised not to see a vomiting scene in this, despite being probably the most famous scene in The Exorcist there's no recreation here which is odd since Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers rips pretty much every other significant scene in The Exorcist off. Forget about any scares as it's all rather inept & cheap looking, the last twenty odd minutes & the exorcism itself is an eyesore of bad lighting & camera angles.

It seems actor turned directed Griff Furst has a lead role in this, he would go on to make three of the worst films ever in Universal Soldiers (2007), I Am Omega (2007) & 100 Million BC (2008) all for The Asylum & all 'mockbuster' rip-offs. Overall the acting isn't that good & I don't actually recognise anyone from this.

Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers sounds like a cheap rip-off, it looks like a cheap rip-off & is a cheap rip-off. Anyone with no standards at all might like it but anyone looking for a decent horror film would be better served watching The Exorcist again.


This kind of exorcism movie makes you realize that anything else than "The Exorcist (1973)" is a crap, not just for the story or the acting, but for the ambiance of the film. Nothing compares to the old 70s horror movies.

"The Exorcist" makes any other movie look like a bad remake of it and causes disgust in the eye of the viewer.

About Gail's exorcism is nothing much to say. Maybe the fact that she looks to be aware of being possessed and enjoys it every second. She's more like a drunk slut exposing herself to males during blackouts and wakes then up in embarrassment.

When possessed Regan MacNeil exposed herself in "The Exorcist" it was anything but attractive, sexy or even obscene. It was probably the most scary part of the movie. I can't remember to have been scared by Gail Bowers putting her hand in her panties.

3 out of 10 for the pantie scene.


Watching this film reminded me of an afternoon sitcom, the actor's did without a doubt, it just has "done on the cheap" written all over it.

it claims to be about the person that the movies "Exorcist" is about, but I found nothing of the such to back up that claim at all, so thats the production company blagging away there.

It's a shame really, as I'm a fan of the genre, but this has "Made for Teens" all over it.

Shame really because it could have been good, especially when you remember that the original Exorcist wasn't released here in the UK for fourteen years!


Within two minutes you can see this is going to be bad. It's appallingly acted. I have seen better performances at a school nativity play. The music and photography immediately shouts soft porn film. There is absolutely no need for the three pairs of breasts to be shown in the film or for Gail to spend most of her time in her underwear. You didn't need to be possessed to know that some show of breasts was coming later on. The make up was incredibly bad. There was a large pink drip clinging to Gail's cheek whilst she wrestled with the her yellow contact lenses, had she been possessed by a demonic blancmange? I need to plead to the people who appeared in this film. GET ANOTHER JOB. You will never be going to the Oscars......unless you can drive a limo or know something about stage lighting. I am sorry to be so mean but I am being cruel to be funny. At least stick to doing commercials ONLY.........that require no speech (a commercial containing a finger pointing at a product would be ideal).

It's bad horror, it's poor porno, it's laughably bad. If you like good looking women showing their breasts then this film is still not for you.


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.


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


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


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")


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.


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.


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.


The movie was brilliant. It opened your eyes to a side of prostitution you never seen before. These are just regular people who come from a different background, different life style and different beliefs. The girl that really got to me was the one who was forced into prostitution by having her families lives threatened. These people view prostitution different than the rest of us. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, make them sinners, it just makes them different, like everyone else. In fact, this movie intrigued me so much I am trying to find the book the movie was supposedly based on but am having trouble doing it. Apparently this book is no where to be found. If anyone has anyways of finding this book would you please email me and let me know how to purchase it. Thankx.


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.


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.


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.


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


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 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.'


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!