Perverse Karla

Based on an infamous real-life case, "Karla" tells the story of a woman named Karla Homolka (Laura Prepon) who gets involved with an upwardly mobile and superficially charming Paul Bernardo (Misha Collins), a man who evaded arrest as the real-life "Scarborough Rapist". In the film, the two hunt down several young girls who are eventually murdered, either by Karla or by Paul. The attacks took place, and the movie is set, in Ontario, Canada, near Toronto. The time period is the early 1990s.

What I find annoying here is the script's POV and plot structure. The entire film is told from Homolka's point of view which, not surprisingly, minimizes her involvement in the various crimes, and to some extent paints her as something of an abused victim of Bernardo. Further, the awful crimes are told in flashback, as she relates them to a prison psychiatrist. These in-house prison scenes are dull and slow. Though Homolka no doubt bears a lot of responsibility for what happened, the real devil here is Paul Bernardo. And the script should have been a straightforward rendering of the murders wherein both Karla and Paul were present.

Casting and acting are fine. Photography contains a lot of side lighting, which casts a gloomy mood over many scenes. Some of the music is eerie and ominous, which foreshadows oncoming dreadful actions.

There was at least one attempt to ban this film, which would have amounted to censorship. Many viewers hate this movie because they feel like it's an attempt to capitalize on human suffering. But many crime films are based on true-life murders and other non-fiction tragedies.

The appropriate audience for this film would be viewers who are interested in true crime, and who can look dispassionately on the people involved, including villains. I'm glad I saw "Karla" because it is based on a real-life case, but I don't think I want to watch it again.

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.

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.

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.