Karla

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.

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.

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.

Karla was difficult to watch. Not necessarily because of the subject matter or that it's based on real events. No. It was difficult to watch because they tried to make you feel bad for Karla. The woman knowingly married a serial rapist. She willingly made a gift of her younger sister to him. The same sister that died because of it. Not to mention she participated in the rape and murder of several children and managed to cop a plea deal on the whole thing when caught by concealing evidence along with help from her lawyer.

Karla Homolka was not a victim. She was a willing participant and any attempt to turn her into a sympathetic character is just pissing on the graves of the people she helped to kill.

I did like the acting because I think it gave Laura Prepon a chance to get out of her "Donna" persona and I think Misha Collins is good as well. Both are young actors and gave a good performance as being both seemingly the perfect couple and the cold people that they were portraying.

I don't blame the Canadian people for being upset. I do not know much about the Canadian Justice system, but I can say this; they are doing something correct because they have fewer social problems than the US does and I do believe they are more proactive with their judicial system as in actually having real rehab instead of pretend rehab.

I have always thought that making a movie or TV show without the victim's families permission is wrong unless there is a big lesson that people need to learn from. Many parents will give permission to TV to warn kids and parents of dangers of somethings, but to do a movie about real events without consent is appalling. Canadians seem more quieter than we are in the US and no Hollywood filmmaker had any right to do that without the victims permission.

Some stories should be told because we as citizens of this world should learn from them. But, I have a hard time seeing what good could come of this story, EXCEPT Laura's performance of Karla as NOT being a victim like she has said she was. She had people she could go to. I really just wanted to see how Laura would do with this character, I felt terrible for the families.