Karla

I was very disturbed to see some of the comments made about this movie. It was said that "the murder and gratuitous violence scenes were not explicit or even realistic"! They were plenty explicit and realistic, enough that I almost stopped the movie. Also, it has to be understood why Canadians did not support this movie. The victims in this movie were children victims, of a smallish, "quiet calm" community, and they were the children of this community. Imagine if this happened to your next door neighbours child, or YOUR child, and then someone wants to make a movie about it! You would be infuriated! I lived in Welland, Ontario when these people were on the loose. I was 12 years old, and my parents were paranoid nervous wrecks until these people were arrested. The day they were arrested, we did not have any classes, they parked us in front of the TV's to watch the news, and so we would have peace of mind that these evil sickos were off the street, and we were safe from them. They terrorized the communities, even the ones that we have no knowledge of them being in, they were close enough to us, that it was very possible that one of the victims could have been one of my friends, they were just too close to us. So, when you complain that this movie was not real enough, or explicit enough, just remember, it not JUST a movie, it was real life! And what you see in the movie is not even the half of all the horrible things they REALLY did.

This was a very controversial film upon its release, especially in Canada where the crimes took place. I would agree to some extent that it is an exploitation film of true events, and in that sense it's easy to say that it's in poor taste. Nonetheless I thought the execution of most of the scenes was quite good, and the film overall was definitely somewhat interesting. The biggest criticism I have for the film is the portrayal of Karla Homolka herself. Here she is painted mostly as a victim, which for many of those who paid attention to this real life case just doesn't seem to ring so true. In fact Homolka is reported to be far above average intelligence and seems to have played a much bigger role in the initiation of the crimes than the film portrays. Many people in Canada who followed the story closely in fact believe she was let off far too easy by the Justice System for her part in these real crimes. Whatever the reality may be, if it sounds interesting to you as a film, it's likely worth a look. 7/10.

Girl falls in love with boy, discovers he's a rapist, marries him and colludes in his continued depravity, then gets caught.

Earnest tale told in plain flashback, with no insight on the characters and no interest in the nature of truth and little by way of visceral horror. The killing scenes are tame, giving no sense of the rush of adrenalin in perpetrators or victims, or the ugliness and finality of violent death. So overall it feels like an old-fashioned made for TV movie.

You get to the postscript and find an entirely different character from the one portrayed by the lead actress, and it's a real head scratcher to think they didn't use that angle to mess things up and break from the linear story telling.

Performances are fine. Lighting is mostly bright, so no great moodiness. Music did its job.

Overall: Simple tale of depravity that didn't feel depraved.

Seems there was controversy in Canada over this, and several of the actors repudiated the film, with lurid tales of misconduct on the set. Its real weakness is that it pulls its punches and fails to be nasty enough.

In most respects, this is a very "modest" film, with only some very brief shots of a naked breast and no other frontal nudity. Even the major violence occurs in a Hitchcockian manner...recognized, but off-camera. (There are several scenes in which Karl is struck by Paul, but they are on par with a typical TV western.) The underlying problem is that this film is very true to the facts as they are known about this case. This apparently disturbs a great many people. No effort is made to justify the actions of Karla and Paul, though the majority of the story is told from the self-serving point of view of Karla herself. We are given no insight into what it might have been in their pasts that would lead them to act in this manner and commit such horrible acts. My reaction to this film, being very familiar with the case itself, is not one of revulsion or horror, but one of great sadness. These were some truly sick people. Be sure to view the extras on the DVD, as they help illuminate what actually happened after the trial and reinforce the fact that the courts and jury did not believe Karla for a moment.

Paul Bernardo - probably one of the cruellest serial killers that ever existed. Around 50% of the votes cast so far are 1 and this is understandable, as the subject matter in the movie is probably the darkest and most disturbing that any movie could possibly be- and to make matters worse, its all true. There is a relentless hate for this movie and people are going to vote 1 just to try to discourage other from seeing it, to try and teach Hollywood to stay out of producing tragic events, but where were the 1's for other movies profiting off tragedies, like Schindler's List, Titanic or Monster? Before seeing it, I read from others that the acting in the movie was great, I didn't take the comments seriously, but after seeing it, I am totally impressed with Laura Preppon's talent- I never thought of her as a good actor. She IS Karla Homolka, and although she won't win any Oscars for this role, she has undoubtedly impressed many other critics who may have never suspected she had this talent within her. The only major difference between Karla and Laura is that Homolka was a very small woman- 5'2 or so, while Laura is very tall, 5'11. When watching the introducing scene, I had doubts about how good Misha Collins would be, but by the time we reached the first perversion, he turns out to be quite a good actor, although I'd say Preppon definitely gives a better performance. People object to this movie for many reasons, and one is that some believe it's too sympathetic to Karla, but I would disagree. True, it is narrated from real life transcripts that Karla gave to her pscyhiatrist,and many see that as a reason to distrust the movie, but what she tells and what we see are sometimes different and the movie does NOT omit ANY of the evil deeds she committed. However, A LOT of the sadistic things that Paul did were omitted in this brief 81 minute movie- and that is why I called it a 'toned-down' version of the gruesome events, more toned-down that most people would suspect it would be. In this way, the violence is not gratuitous, but there are *surprise!* many cringe-inducing moments. One flaw I see in this movie is the improper allocation of time to various events. The movie covers 90% of the key events, but there was no mention of the videotapes being found, (which completely turned the case upside-down) nor was there any time giving us background information about Bernardo or Holmolka, which we see in other serial killer movies like Monster (we see Aileen as a teenager). I may be wrong, but I think the chronological order between various events may have been shuffled in one case, but probably for editing reasons. I doubt any reviews that IMDb can offer will make a difference in whether one sees it or not, as either you can tolerate watching difficult things or you cannot. However, I agree with CBC's review that is 'an above-average' movie and while being tough to watch, it can also be a tool to reinforce the message that appearances can be deceiving.