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.
93 Reviews
A difficult film to watch...
Onthethreshold23 October 2007
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.
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.
Deal With The Devil
Lechuguilla29 August 2014
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.
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.
Karla is one sided.
slbarnett-687-38310916 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie seemed to try to make the view feel compassion for sorrow for Karla but she showed none to her victims. She and her husband should have been given the death penalty. I don't understand how she could be out of prison and I don't understand how a movie could be made to show any compassion for her. She deserves none! This is another case of a film trying to gain sympathy for the killer and none for the victims or the victim's families. Prepon did an awesome job portraying Karla Holumka. I was ready to feel sorry for her until I read more about her true character. The movie should have shown more of her real self instead of the innocent victim portrayed in the movie Karla. This was a frightening movie because of the truth of it and because of the truth left out of it.
Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French & Tammy Homolka
QweenOfTheDarned16 June 2020
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.
Disturbing, And A Real Departure For Prepon.
drownsoda9012 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Karla" centers around a young Canadian couple who meet and very quickly fall in love with each other: Paul Bernardo (Misha Collins) and Karla Homolka (Laura Prepon, of TV's "That '70s Show"). Unfortunately, Paul is mentally unstable, and finds pleasure in raping and sexually abusing women - something Karla wasn't aware of in the beginning. It begins on Christmas Eve when Karla and Paul end up accidentally killing Karla's younger sister while trying to make a sex video. While she is disturbed by the entire thing, she is still desperate for love (which she believes she has truly found), so Karla goes along with her husband's insatiable hunger for sexual violence and power, and takes part in it as well, as he kidnaps young women, makes sex tapes with them, tortures them, and ultimately murders them.
Based on the real-life murders that occurred back in the early '90s, I found this true-crime flick a fairly disturbing film. I had read a little about the real crimes that happened before, finding that Homolka and Bernardo have been labeled Canada's most notorious murderers. While I know the basic details of the case, I'm still not all too familiar with the real Karla's involvement in the murders. In the film she is depicted as an abused woman, weakened by her husband's manipulative and violent personality. In fear of him, she does as he says, even if that means participating in horrific acts. The main reason she is seen as guilty in the murders is because of her "lack of empathy for the victims", and this is clearly shown throughout the film. The problem that I had here though is that I was confused as to how this film was trying to portray her - was it attempting to tell us that Karla was simply an abused, beaten-down person who was coaxed into these crimes? Or was she mentally unstable as well, and participated in the crimes by her own free will? To me it appeared the film was sympathetic towards her, but that's how I interpreted it. Whatever the real events may have consisted of, the storyline revolving around her character is fairly well constructed, whether it is fictionalized in the real Karla's favor or not. Good writing is present, and the story is told from Karla's point of view as she retells the events to a parole officer in hopes of making her way out of prison into the real world.
The acting in the film was surprisingly good. Laura Prepon, who gained her fame playing the friendly red-headed girl-next-door in the television sitcom "That '70s Show", makes a large departure from her comedy roots, in a powerhouse performance as an extremely dark, and obscure character. She plays the character surprisingly well, and anyone who is immune to seeing her as the spunky, good-hearted Donna on "That '70s Show" will be quite surprised with this disturbing performance she delivers. The audience can sympathize with her to a certain extent (which is sometimes almost fully). Again, I am not sure if the real Karla was as innocent as the film portrays her. In the film however, she seems relatively normal, and clearly not as mad as her husband. Her neglect for human life though (and her passive following of her husband) is a sure sign of mental illness. Misha Collins is menacing as well as her abusive and murderous husband - he's a scary guy. The violence in the film is mostly implicated and not shown, but it's just as equally effective - the abuse and torture endured by these innocent girls is awful, and stomach churning when projected on screen. I can't imagine what the real victims endured, and in respect I'd like to send out my condolences to the families of the real victims.
Overall, "Karla" is a disturbing film. Regardless of the real Karla Homolka's innocence or guilt in the actual crimes, this is still a really good crime film that holds itself up well. If you go into see this movie, expect a disturbing and uneasy experience. The story is fairly well told (even if the real facts may be distorted or changed for storytelling purposes), and it is an interesting film to watch, plus there are really good performances to be found. One thing I can say for sure is that it is much better than most of the straight-to-video true crime junk that you can find at your video store. 7/10.
Based on the real-life murders that occurred back in the early '90s, I found this true-crime flick a fairly disturbing film. I had read a little about the real crimes that happened before, finding that Homolka and Bernardo have been labeled Canada's most notorious murderers. While I know the basic details of the case, I'm still not all too familiar with the real Karla's involvement in the murders. In the film she is depicted as an abused woman, weakened by her husband's manipulative and violent personality. In fear of him, she does as he says, even if that means participating in horrific acts. The main reason she is seen as guilty in the murders is because of her "lack of empathy for the victims", and this is clearly shown throughout the film. The problem that I had here though is that I was confused as to how this film was trying to portray her - was it attempting to tell us that Karla was simply an abused, beaten-down person who was coaxed into these crimes? Or was she mentally unstable as well, and participated in the crimes by her own free will? To me it appeared the film was sympathetic towards her, but that's how I interpreted it. Whatever the real events may have consisted of, the storyline revolving around her character is fairly well constructed, whether it is fictionalized in the real Karla's favor or not. Good writing is present, and the story is told from Karla's point of view as she retells the events to a parole officer in hopes of making her way out of prison into the real world.
The acting in the film was surprisingly good. Laura Prepon, who gained her fame playing the friendly red-headed girl-next-door in the television sitcom "That '70s Show", makes a large departure from her comedy roots, in a powerhouse performance as an extremely dark, and obscure character. She plays the character surprisingly well, and anyone who is immune to seeing her as the spunky, good-hearted Donna on "That '70s Show" will be quite surprised with this disturbing performance she delivers. The audience can sympathize with her to a certain extent (which is sometimes almost fully). Again, I am not sure if the real Karla was as innocent as the film portrays her. In the film however, she seems relatively normal, and clearly not as mad as her husband. Her neglect for human life though (and her passive following of her husband) is a sure sign of mental illness. Misha Collins is menacing as well as her abusive and murderous husband - he's a scary guy. The violence in the film is mostly implicated and not shown, but it's just as equally effective - the abuse and torture endured by these innocent girls is awful, and stomach churning when projected on screen. I can't imagine what the real victims endured, and in respect I'd like to send out my condolences to the families of the real victims.
Overall, "Karla" is a disturbing film. Regardless of the real Karla Homolka's innocence or guilt in the actual crimes, this is still a really good crime film that holds itself up well. If you go into see this movie, expect a disturbing and uneasy experience. The story is fairly well told (even if the real facts may be distorted or changed for storytelling purposes), and it is an interesting film to watch, plus there are really good performances to be found. One thing I can say for sure is that it is much better than most of the straight-to-video true crime junk that you can find at your video store. 7/10.
It's not true crime, just kinda based on it.
Java_Joe29 October 2018
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.
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.
At first, it's hard to understand the furor over this film.
innocuous4 April 2007
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.
Ridiculous Portrayal of Evil
tpkrause117 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Paul Bernardo was an absolute monster, but so was his wife, Karla Homolka. If you aren't familiar with the case, as I wasn't, there is a ton of information online. The couple's victims were young girls, raped and videotaped, and the ensuing torture and murder seemed to escalate. Homolka took part in all of it, even bringing a 15 year girl home as a "gift" for her husband and flagging down girls to their car to be kidnapped.
The movie's depiction of Karla is ridiculous. She's portrayed as helplessly naive, girlish, cutsey, stupid, hopelessly in love, and innocently involved in sadism. Over and over, the movie plays out it's moronic pattern, nonsensically depicting weak protests as if to exonerate her, but actually unable to escape her real participation in sick, sadistic child murders. Her furrowed brows of concern and averted glances while participating in rape, torture, and murder do nothing to shield her. In one idiotic scene, Karla gives the poison to the girl herself and then, afterwards, shudders and argues over what she's done. In another, she takes a shower to seemingly cleanse herself from the sin of keeping a Catholic school girl in a closet. Absolutely not - this woman was a serial rapist and killer, and the portrayal doesn't even seem to make sense to the actress playing her. The thing is, she actually did all these horrible things, and, sheepish glances or arguments or not, sheepish glances and arguments still don't make this woman innocent.
The movie's depiction of Karla is ridiculous. She's portrayed as helplessly naive, girlish, cutsey, stupid, hopelessly in love, and innocently involved in sadism. Over and over, the movie plays out it's moronic pattern, nonsensically depicting weak protests as if to exonerate her, but actually unable to escape her real participation in sick, sadistic child murders. Her furrowed brows of concern and averted glances while participating in rape, torture, and murder do nothing to shield her. In one idiotic scene, Karla gives the poison to the girl herself and then, afterwards, shudders and argues over what she's done. In another, she takes a shower to seemingly cleanse herself from the sin of keeping a Catholic school girl in a closet. Absolutely not - this woman was a serial rapist and killer, and the portrayal doesn't even seem to make sense to the actress playing her. The thing is, she actually did all these horrible things, and, sheepish glances or arguments or not, sheepish glances and arguments still don't make this woman innocent.
Controversial, Highly Debatable, But...
TheAnimalMother4 July 2021
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.
A filthy lie of a movie.
TwittingOnTrender28 October 2019
Anyone with the merest familiarity with this horrendous case will start to scratch their head almost from the start. You'll be checking the box, checking the disc to confirm you put the right one in. This movie portrays the titular character, a cold-blooded psychopath who participated in the mutilation, rape and murder of her own sister for the sexual gratification of her husband and herself, as a victim, an almost heroic character. Watch as she cringes, blanches and can't bear to look as the husband carries out the atrocities. Nothing to do with her! She was a battered wife, too terrified to prevent these crimes. If you're tempted to watch this garbage, and I recommend you don't, at least read up on the case first.
The whole movie is then undermined by the intertitles at the end where, in a few lines, we are told just what the judge at her trial thought of Karla.
Apart from that, the acting is abysmal, the cinematography is headache inducing and the dialogue was obviously scrawled on a cigarette packet just before shooting started. It appears to have had the budget of a school play. Treat this movie like a pool of vomit on the pavement, and give it a wide berth.
Karla not a victim...,Narcissistic personality
MarieGabrielle17 July 2009
Disorder is accurately diagnosed by her psychiatrist,well-portrayed by veteran actor Patrick Bauchau.
Laura Prepon is believable and cold as Karla Homolka, who was jailed for killing her sister and conspiring with sexual sadist and psychopath Paul Bernardo. He is odiously portrayed by Misha Collins.
The story itself is horrific,and I believe the writer accurately portrayed Karla as borderline psychotic,yet she has a surface normalcy to society,much the same as Ted Bundy and other psychopaths. She is not a sympathetic character, and Prepon delivers a believable performance.
Overall an interesting study,Misha Collins as Bernard is particularly devoid of conscience and detestable,and it would be impossible to explain why any woman would stay with him for love, unless she was indeed psychotic.
Laura Prepon is believable and cold as Karla Homolka, who was jailed for killing her sister and conspiring with sexual sadist and psychopath Paul Bernardo. He is odiously portrayed by Misha Collins.
The story itself is horrific,and I believe the writer accurately portrayed Karla as borderline psychotic,yet she has a surface normalcy to society,much the same as Ted Bundy and other psychopaths. She is not a sympathetic character, and Prepon delivers a believable performance.
Overall an interesting study,Misha Collins as Bernard is particularly devoid of conscience and detestable,and it would be impossible to explain why any woman would stay with him for love, unless she was indeed psychotic.
Hope I wasn't supposed to feel sorry for her
labng1 January 2020
An Inaccurate and Poorly Produced Film
wolfgangviking2 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Having lived and followed this case in Toronto, I am disappointed with this film which is both inaccurate and dull. What is a film supposed to do? Inform? Entertain? This film does neither; the case of Karla Homolka and her accomplice, Paul Bernardo, is a fascinating series of events that exposed the incompetence of the provincial police and justice system. For years Bernardo raped and killed without coming close to being caught. The only reason he was finally charged for the murders was due to Karla's testimony and that came at the price of a plea bargain that infuriated a normally subdued nation. The film decides to focus instead on the misplaced suggestion that Karla, as an abused spouse, was compelled to participate in the torture and murders. How this can be plausible stretches the imagination considering she appeared to enjoy herself in the videos (entered into evidence) and then continued this behaviour for years and with 3 different girls. There is a reason why no one in Canada would touch this film; the nation sympathizes with the victims' families and the reasons for making this film remain dubious. American Psycho (based on a book that allegedly inspired these acts) is a fictional account that made a social commentary on the yuppie decadence of the 80s with Christian Bale giving a strong performance. This film says nothing of importance on perhaps the most notorious case in that nation's history. As far as entertainment, well, you have to be careful, these are true events and must be handled differently one must be responsible, otherwise it comes across as simply cheap exploitation. As far as the technical aspects, it is a poorly produced work with lower standards than a regular HBO offering; Director Joel Bender captures nothing of the horror that this home must have been as a place of torture and death day after day. The acting by Laura Prepon is simply uninteresting, if not absent; through the latter part of the film she is almost like a zombie resigned to her life. I want to know what she was thinking when she was in the washroom doing her hair and make up speaking in a friendly manner with the victim that she had just kidnapped and assaulted. But, alas, this scene does not appear in the film. It would have been an interesting character study. A scene from the court transcripts that does make it to the screen is the moment that one of the victims finally defies Bernardo and fights back refusing to acquiesce to his demands. "There are some things worth dying for", she says and then, according to the court testimony, she is murdered. However, the film depicts her as actually retracting her courageous statement. A despicable artistic license that insults the victim. This is a film that should be viewed as a cautionary tale of how not to make films.
Whoever made this movie should get their facts straight
Payback101628 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
To say this movie shouldn't be made is not the problem. When a story like the Scarborough Rapist is as famous as it got, eventually a movie would be made regardless of boycott. However to purposefully dilute the storyline, making it seem that Homolka is the helpless victim just shows how evil this world can be. The fact that it got made, after Homolka's release just adds battery acid to the already open wounds of the victim's family. Speaking as someone who grew up in Scarborough and heard the story most of my life, I was surprised how epically and ethically wrong this movie was. I hope that this director is happy in counting the money he made from the blood of innocent people.
Numbing and pointless ordeal
michael.will21 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
For non-Canuck readers who might not be familiar with this media frenzy of the past decade, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka have the dubious distinction of being the First Couple of Canadian Crime. Bernardo, a long time serial rapist, and Homolka, an amoral party girl, had a brief courtship and marriage during the early 90s, in the small city of St. Catherines, Ontario. During this time they were responsible for the torture slayings of two teenage girls, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, as well as the rape and accidental killing of Homolka's 15-year-old sister, Tammy. After a long and bungled RCMP investigation finally led to their capture, Homolka plea bargained by turning evidence against her by-then estranged husband. Bernardo was given life without parole, and Homolka got off with 12 years for manslaughter, on the theory that her involvement was due to battered wife syndrome, and there was indeed well-documented proof that he had regularly beaten her. Only after the sentencing, however, were home videos of the crimes uncovered, and these revealed that not only Homolka was an enthusiastic participant, but possibly the actual killer, which Bernardo continues to contend from his cell. Her light sentence and subsequent release, last summer, has made her one of the most reviled persons in Canadian history. She's nowadays reportedly living in hiding, somewhere here in Montreal.
"Karla" is a sketchy adaptation of "Invisible Darkness", the true crime bestseller by Stephen Williams, which ran into legal hassles and much public outrage, for revealing court-sealed details of the grisly case, such as play-by-play descriptions of the incriminating videos. That there'd actually be a movie version was way too much for the various decency brigades, and no Canadian talent would dare touch it, so this is a rare example of a Canadian tale made entirely in the States by Americans, rather than the other way around. It shows, especially in the casting and characterizations. While the sequence of events, at least the more lurid ones, is laid out with plodding accuracy, it plays like something overheard, then retold, by someone who wasn't there. There's no feel for regional dialect or cultural idiosyncrasies, or even its time frame of a decade and a half ago. TV's Laura Prepon (no doubt imagining that this would be her "Monster" ticket to the big time)is all wrong as Karla, coming across a big-boned trailer trash hoyden perpetually stunned by her situation, rather than the petite, cunning and creepily girlish sociopath who so captured our mass revulsion. Misha Collins is all psycho-jock swagger and hoodlum snarls, with no hint of the pudgy-cheeked sickly boyish charm of the would-be yuppie next door, with his phony Ken Doll wholesomeness, that the real Bernardo not only socially aspired to, but used as such a clever disguise during his reign of terror.
The sheer ickiness of the real life couple is where "Karla" really misses the mark, in terms of both dramatic insight and black comedy potential. While the murders themselves, which the film wallows in as its main focal point, were indeed sad and terrible, there was a horrid hilarity to the killers and the 80s retro, idealized image they presented to the world. With their matching bleach blonde hair and rabid consumerism, they really thought themselves the perfect upwardly mobile couple, or at least a failed yokel approximation of one. Things like Karla's hideous taste in just about everything, and Paul's talentless aspirations to be the next Vanilla Ice, could've inserted some much needed chilly chuckles into the relentless despair, without detracting from the horrific impact. Also barely dealt with is that pompous, ridiculously expensive wedding of theirs, in which they paraded, the very picture of kitschy bliss as they waved to onlookers, through the streets of Niagara-on-the-Lake in a horse drawn carriage, only to finish the day at a grotesque reception of drunken family dysfunction. This could've surely been the most pivotal of climaxes, but is tossed off as a brief visual footnote. If only the film would've taken its cue from something like the cult classic, "The Honeymoon Killers", and balanced its real life horrors with a sense of their absurdity, which the well-written and extensively researched book was offering up in spades. That it didn't is hardly surprising, though, given all the moral indignation and potential lawsuits the production had to tippy-toe around, so that the finished product comes across as one long and pointless apology that it was even made. Of course the pedestrian direction by Joel Bender, veteran of such stellar titles as "Immortal Combat" and "Warrior Queen", doesn't help. His approach to serious docudrama seems to be showing as much nasty stuff as he can away with, with an earnest solemnity he hopes will camouflage his sleazy fixations. A classic case of flimsy talent trying to over-reach his abilities.
At any rate, I caught opening night of its limited Canadian release, and it appears that all the controversy surrounding this film has done nothing to spark attendance, and word-of-mouth certainly won't, either. Prime time crowd of maybe 50, curiosity seekers who learned absolutely nothing new, and smartsy teens (girls calling out to see if Karla was in the audience, and other girls answering, "Here I am!") looking for bad taste laughs, which it wasn't even inept enough to provide. My guess is that in its country of origin, where it hasn't yet found a distributor, "Karla" will go the route of the rest of Bender's products, bypassing the marquees and heading straight to cable.
"Karla" is a sketchy adaptation of "Invisible Darkness", the true crime bestseller by Stephen Williams, which ran into legal hassles and much public outrage, for revealing court-sealed details of the grisly case, such as play-by-play descriptions of the incriminating videos. That there'd actually be a movie version was way too much for the various decency brigades, and no Canadian talent would dare touch it, so this is a rare example of a Canadian tale made entirely in the States by Americans, rather than the other way around. It shows, especially in the casting and characterizations. While the sequence of events, at least the more lurid ones, is laid out with plodding accuracy, it plays like something overheard, then retold, by someone who wasn't there. There's no feel for regional dialect or cultural idiosyncrasies, or even its time frame of a decade and a half ago. TV's Laura Prepon (no doubt imagining that this would be her "Monster" ticket to the big time)is all wrong as Karla, coming across a big-boned trailer trash hoyden perpetually stunned by her situation, rather than the petite, cunning and creepily girlish sociopath who so captured our mass revulsion. Misha Collins is all psycho-jock swagger and hoodlum snarls, with no hint of the pudgy-cheeked sickly boyish charm of the would-be yuppie next door, with his phony Ken Doll wholesomeness, that the real Bernardo not only socially aspired to, but used as such a clever disguise during his reign of terror.
The sheer ickiness of the real life couple is where "Karla" really misses the mark, in terms of both dramatic insight and black comedy potential. While the murders themselves, which the film wallows in as its main focal point, were indeed sad and terrible, there was a horrid hilarity to the killers and the 80s retro, idealized image they presented to the world. With their matching bleach blonde hair and rabid consumerism, they really thought themselves the perfect upwardly mobile couple, or at least a failed yokel approximation of one. Things like Karla's hideous taste in just about everything, and Paul's talentless aspirations to be the next Vanilla Ice, could've inserted some much needed chilly chuckles into the relentless despair, without detracting from the horrific impact. Also barely dealt with is that pompous, ridiculously expensive wedding of theirs, in which they paraded, the very picture of kitschy bliss as they waved to onlookers, through the streets of Niagara-on-the-Lake in a horse drawn carriage, only to finish the day at a grotesque reception of drunken family dysfunction. This could've surely been the most pivotal of climaxes, but is tossed off as a brief visual footnote. If only the film would've taken its cue from something like the cult classic, "The Honeymoon Killers", and balanced its real life horrors with a sense of their absurdity, which the well-written and extensively researched book was offering up in spades. That it didn't is hardly surprising, though, given all the moral indignation and potential lawsuits the production had to tippy-toe around, so that the finished product comes across as one long and pointless apology that it was even made. Of course the pedestrian direction by Joel Bender, veteran of such stellar titles as "Immortal Combat" and "Warrior Queen", doesn't help. His approach to serious docudrama seems to be showing as much nasty stuff as he can away with, with an earnest solemnity he hopes will camouflage his sleazy fixations. A classic case of flimsy talent trying to over-reach his abilities.
At any rate, I caught opening night of its limited Canadian release, and it appears that all the controversy surrounding this film has done nothing to spark attendance, and word-of-mouth certainly won't, either. Prime time crowd of maybe 50, curiosity seekers who learned absolutely nothing new, and smartsy teens (girls calling out to see if Karla was in the audience, and other girls answering, "Here I am!") looking for bad taste laughs, which it wasn't even inept enough to provide. My guess is that in its country of origin, where it hasn't yet found a distributor, "Karla" will go the route of the rest of Bender's products, bypassing the marquees and heading straight to cable.
Its good for what it is.
Cablebot300020 August 2008
Karla is based on the real life killers Paul Bernado and Karla Homolka. As most serial killer/rapists movies go, its just alright. The director tried to capture the brutality and true nature of the characters, but it only went so far. Misha Collins and Laura Prepon do a pretty good job, but also seemed a little distant to their characters because of the script. However, its still a good effort. I am also glad that it is not as graphic as it could have been. It is pretty harsh, but not over the top or extreme. Overall, while its not the greatest serial/killer rapist movie based on a true story, it tried, and the effort was not too shabby. I rate this 7/10. Rated R for brutal psychotic violence including murder, rape, and spousal abuse,disturbing sexual content and strong language
Disturbed
dajeckyl29 July 2007
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.
Good performances, disrespectful to the victims families
shannonphoenix25 October 2008
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.
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.
Compelety Inaccurate Details in Movie
markcowderoy28 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I generally do not write reviews of movies, but I feel compelled to air my opinions regarding this film. This movie was boycotted by most of the Canadian public and only played on a few theatres in the county, out of respect for the Mahoffy and French families. As an irresponsible Canadian who had the morbid curiosity to view this film, I was appalled not only by the graphic content, but most importantly, the factual inaccuracies throughout this film. This film portrayed Karla Holmolka as a victimized housewife, subjected to chronic spousal abuse from her partner Paul Bernardo. However, it left out many important facts with one example being how she murdered her sister (cut the tendons in her ankles so she could not run away) in order for her husband to repeatedly rape her sister, and laughed about it with her husband. This was all documented in court transcripts and video that they taped during the murders that the film failed to recognize. Karla was no victim in these horrific murders and was a much more willing participant then portrayed, so please understand that if you choose to view this film.
Not even a 'sorry'
sasho_mladenovic27 March 2019
Movie did a decent job telling the story. The acting was good. Too bad they portrayed Karla as a victim when she was a participant. A pair of true psychopaths. It's unfortunate that Karla isn't serving a life sentence. She doesn't deserve freedom. Didn't even apologize. Its sickening.
Know the Facts first people
psychootter10 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Normally I'm the type of person who will dislike a movie because the acting or directing was bad. Karla, however, proposes an entirely different case for me. By all means, the acting and directing were great. That is why I couldn't give my review any lower then I all ready did. What makes Karla unforgivable is the fact that it says it's truth while really it is a lie. Karla is painted as a victim while her husband Paul commits all these horrible acts. She just stands there and watches while her husband does horrible things to young girls he kidnapped. The truth, Karla would help him rape and torture those girls. They video taped it so that the truth is out there. Karla not only participated in the horrible acts, but she was enjoying herself. What this movie does is give poor ignorant people almost two hours of making Karla Homolka look like this innocent abused woman who only wanted a fairy tale marriage and to make her husband happy. Then for the last minute of the film, it tells us in writing that she didn't get off for parole and that she never apologized to the families of the victims. And that is the movie. Please people, know the facts!!! Read the book, or even watch the criminal minds episode. Read the case online, anything! Anything but this horrible package of lies sticking up for one of the most evil people to ever live. Sorry if this review seems scattered, but I'm irate at the moment. This movie should never have been made.
Moving and well made
frater_solomon6 September 2006
An 8 only because this movie didn't need to be made. The world doesn't need another serial killer movie, true or not, but I am Canadian and remember this trial well, so I watched this movie (somewhat reluctantly).
In the end I was impressed with Prepon's ability to show two very different and intensely complicated people (the wife consumed by the love she feels for an abusive monster of a husband and the parolee reliving her worst experiences) throughout this film. Collins was equally impressive in portraying the charming guy that everyone loves and then turning into a monster in an instant. In watching this film one can understand why it took such a toll on the actors. Whether this film is true to the actual crimes or not, at the very least it presents a powerful impression of Karla's side of the story.
The film captures just a hint of the terror wrought upon the women Bernardo abused, in particular the girls he and Karla abducted, without resorting to conventional horror movie tactics. Not graphic, but infinitely more disturbing.
In the end I was impressed with Prepon's ability to show two very different and intensely complicated people (the wife consumed by the love she feels for an abusive monster of a husband and the parolee reliving her worst experiences) throughout this film. Collins was equally impressive in portraying the charming guy that everyone loves and then turning into a monster in an instant. In watching this film one can understand why it took such a toll on the actors. Whether this film is true to the actual crimes or not, at the very least it presents a powerful impression of Karla's side of the story.
The film captures just a hint of the terror wrought upon the women Bernardo abused, in particular the girls he and Karla abducted, without resorting to conventional horror movie tactics. Not graphic, but infinitely more disturbing.
Laura Prepon gives a command performance!
Sylviastel25 October 2009
Laura Prepon gives a command performance as perhaps Canada's most hated woman, Karla Homolka Bernardo. I give her credit that it was award-worthy because I am used to seeing her do comedy. In this two drama, the story about the horrendous killing of three young girls including her own baby sister and the rapes in Ontario, Canada is carefully minimal to the actual events. There was a lot more that they could have added in but they did focus on Karla's side of the story and how she tries to convince the psychiatrist to recommend her for early parole. For those who have read anything about the case, the horrors and the shocking crimes were scaled down to the audience but it's still frightening nevertheless. Karla falls for Paul Bernardo who turns out to be a rapist/killer. Laura Prepon's performance provides a more than a one dimensional view of Karla's character. While I have my own judgment about the case of her involvement, I have to say that the film does a decent job in developing her character as an abused wife but her role in the hideous crimes is still unbelievable. It would have been impossible to show the actual crimes anyway. They were too gruesome and just evil. My heart goes out to the victims and their families but not to Karla who I think got off too easy.
Even amateurs could have made a better film
juvenile-228 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you were expecting some insight into the mind of Canada's most notorious female murderer, don't expect much from this film. This isn't like watching Charlize Theron eerily transform into Aileen Wuornos. Although Laura Prepon does her best, she lacks a proper script, a competent director, and a sufficient budget. After seeing credible news documentaries and that creepy interview Homolka gave to Radio-Canada in the summer of 2005 upon her release, Prepon seems to be playing someone completely different, a victim of circumstance and abuse rather than someone who willingly made some very poor choices and destroyed many lives. Where are the accounts of the real Homolka complaining about her father's grief over the death of her sister Tammy (who died as a result of Homolka's involvement) and the brief return she made shortly after her arrest to her St. Catharine's home wearing a schoolgirl's uniform, when she was more concerned about having the police divvy up her belongings from her husband Paul's than the fact that she was entering the same house where the rapes and murders occurred. By painting an obviously inaccurate portrait of Homolka, Joel Bender discredits his own film. At least in Monster, we see Wuornos' difficulty in escaping her environment, but we also see her responsibility in making some terrible decisions. By softening Homolka, we don't struggle with the public's perception of her as evil because her portrait just seems false.
The look of the film reminds me of a standard '80s television crime drama, which is a little tired, but not unattractive. However, the transitions between scenes appear clumsy. Misha Collins also tries his best as Paul Bernardo, but the script lets him descend too easily and quickly to raving lunatic. Collins' Bernardo screams "player" and "creep" from his first appearance. The real Bernardo is baby-faced and has a blank, innocent stare.
I was warned against seeing this film, so of course, I had to see it. I went in having only read a brief interview with Bender stating that the story would stick to recorded events and that the ultimate verdict regarding Homolka's guilt or innocence would be left up to viewers. Trust me, this film does take a stance and points the finger of blame squarely on Bernardo. Sanctifying Homolka reminds of that episode of "The Simpsons" where Mr. Burns writes his autobiography and paints himself not as Machiavelli's successor but as the world's hero.
The look of the film reminds me of a standard '80s television crime drama, which is a little tired, but not unattractive. However, the transitions between scenes appear clumsy. Misha Collins also tries his best as Paul Bernardo, but the script lets him descend too easily and quickly to raving lunatic. Collins' Bernardo screams "player" and "creep" from his first appearance. The real Bernardo is baby-faced and has a blank, innocent stare.
I was warned against seeing this film, so of course, I had to see it. I went in having only read a brief interview with Bender stating that the story would stick to recorded events and that the ultimate verdict regarding Homolka's guilt or innocence would be left up to viewers. Trust me, this film does take a stance and points the finger of blame squarely on Bernardo. Sanctifying Homolka reminds of that episode of "The Simpsons" where Mr. Burns writes his autobiography and paints himself not as Machiavelli's successor but as the world's hero.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
