Perverse Karla

Being Canadian and the fact this film isn't widely available up here I feel compelled to offer some comment on what many consider a tragic story exploited for financial gain to no end.

Those of us that lived this story back in the early 1990's and the subsequent trial of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka can attest to the degree of disgust many felt at the crimes these two committed. The film is accurate in many respects as to details of the story, but make no mistake that the details were far more sadistic and brutal than what has been portrayed in this movie. At least to those of us that have read the transcripts of the videotapes that Bernardo took of his victims, and one can hardly blame the director from omitting those details or forcing an actor to play such a role out.

My only beef with this movie however is that it does attempt to paint a picture of Karla Homolka being just as much a victim here as Bernardo, and although no one can deny she was under his influence and subject to this violent outbursts, to suggest she had no control over this situation and simply tagged along for the ride is to suggest that she was just as much a victim of Bernardo as the two murder victims. Those versed in this case know much better and the role she may have played in the death of Kristen French (aka Kaitlyn Ross) is something we'll likely never know as there are those that suggest she was directly responsible for killing the second victim.

The acting in this film is nothing notable, but given the nature of the roles played here it's wonder they found anyone to play these two to begin with. Because of the difficult subject matter I'll let the mediocre acting pass because for it to be much better would almost be like saying the actors immersed themselves perhaps a little too much in characters that most would find revolting and if not downright sickening.

In the final analysis, 'Karla' is a film you'll only watch once and personally I don't think this was necessarily ever meant to be a movie for mass consumption either at the theatre or your local videostore. That being said, Canadians should have the right to see this movie for those so inclined vs. having the state tell us what is suitable or unsuitable for our viewing pleasure as there are movies out on the market FAR more disturbing about real life events than this flick could ever hope to be.

I'm rarely a fan of one star ratings, as they are usually reserved for the ignorant, uncultured, or extremely bored. This time, I'm afraid, there really is no choice but to rate this as lowly as possible. The truth of who this woman is was not demonstrated in this film, and that served to inappropriately victimize a naturally born psychopath while barely paying respect to the victims: Tammy Homolka, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. This murderess is portrayed as a classic Stockholm's sufferer, but the overwhelming evidence proved she was anything but. I know I'm writing this in 2020, and this film was made a little over 10 years prior, but it doesn't erase the fact that we need to stop telling stories like this unless they are true to the facts and serve to respect and pay homage to the victims. When you can walk away from a true crime story without quite remembering the names of the victims, the story has failed. Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed. I refused to finish out of respect for Leslie, Kristen, Tammy, and loved ones still reeling from this unbelievable nightmare created by two narcissistic, psychopathic bags of flesh and bone.

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.

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.

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.