VALUTAZIONE IMDb
2,6/10
2013
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaInspired by true events, the film follows OJ Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in the last days before her tragic death on June 12th 1994, as seen from her point of view.Inspired by true events, the film follows OJ Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in the last days before her tragic death on June 12th 1994, as seen from her point of view.Inspired by true events, the film follows OJ Simpson's ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson in the last days before her tragic death on June 12th 1994, as seen from her point of view.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Bianca Van Damme
- Detective Leigh
- (as Bianca Brigitte VanDamme)
Sky Liam
- Michael Nigg
- (as Sky Patterson)
Recensioni in evidenza
As a follower of this case, I regretted watching this.
A film which will get views based upon the doubts it will try to stir up. Such sensationalism is a well worn Hollywood movie practice including many of the "controversial" Michael Douglas movies, but this lands more like William Castle.
The premise as is detailed in the trailer, is that the famous murders that took place June 12, 2004 were in fact committed by a serial killer, not OJ Simpson. This possibility of what this film shows was previously raised on CNN but it simply has never been taken seriously elsewhere.
IMO, this film would have been best done as some kind of "documentary" with licensed images, period TV news video and headlines of the time to pose the possibilities that this presents.
The "docudrama" format, esp THIS one, IMO, fails to engage the viewer while presenting at times what appears to be at times a low budget slasher film. Either the director doesn't seem to want the audience to emphasize with the victims or is unable to.
Mena Suvari's performance lacks depth between simply switching from twitchy to vapid. It was real missed opportunity for Suvari who has managed to deliver in other roles. But Nick Stahl rises above expectations. My biggest disappointment in any of these portrayals was the superficial portrayal of Ron Goldman. OJ's character is shown only briefly and the movie does not make any effort of showing him as empathic, however, the detached portrait of the victims left a bad taste in my mouth.
MAJOR PROBLEMS.
Because the things I will list below aren't in the movie they are not "spoilers".
My biggest problem is that the film makes no effort in addressing the elephants in the room. For the premise of this film to be true, then one has to accept a whole list of things.
I'll start with the big one. During the trial the Simpson defense searched for every possible alternative.
If even PART of the information presented in this film were known at the time, Simpson's defense team would have been all over it. They were not. There was ZERO mention of it at or away from the trial (on the media).
To me, it is unbelievable that the "dream team" would have ignored the information presented in this film had it stood up to any scrutiny. I'm *sure* the house *next door* was checked out at the time.
Both OJ and the "dream team" *did* mention drug dealers along with graphic descriptions of their methods both during the trial and on camera.
But that theory is not what *this* film is about. OJ Simpson frequently referred to drug dealers after the trial but no one until now was there ever a extended mention of the things that this movie shows.
Then... OJ wrote a book "If I Did It" (sic). *That* would have been a good place to have presented what's in his movie... only it was not.
Then there is, well, practically everything else that one must ask, "so if this is what happened, then why....?"
Like the timing of the attack with OJ's departure to Chicago. Was that just coincidence? That's not proof of his guilt but that was some coincidence if this movie was true. Then there's the bloody finger. Then the finding of bloody glove, the loud banging on Kato's air conditioner (which remains a mystery of logic to me), the trail of victims blood through his house. Were all these things just coincidences?
I'm not even talking about OJ's history of violence. I will agree that there is a big difference between being a moody wife beater and a premeditated murderer but it's not as if this was out of the blue.
The forensic dept in LA may have been sloppy, but could the gang that couldn't handle their samples as the textbook says really pull off such a conspiracy?
Then the famous Bronco chase. Everyone has something to hide and I could see him panicking, however, let's remember that to most people, he was going to kill himself when that truck stopped. But if not that, then you have a disguise and a failed getaway.
There is no doubt that questions remain unanswered, but this is just too "out there" for this "trial of the century" viewer to be satisfied with.
The ESPN documentary "Made in America" to me is definitive and for a docu-drama mini-series, "The People v. O. J. Simpson" offered a high level of accuracy and surprisingly good performances.
I've seen other presentations proposing others (ones suggesting Al Cowlings, Jason Simpson and Ron Shipp being the real murderers), but among all of these, this ranks the lowest.
A film which will get views based upon the doubts it will try to stir up. Such sensationalism is a well worn Hollywood movie practice including many of the "controversial" Michael Douglas movies, but this lands more like William Castle.
The premise as is detailed in the trailer, is that the famous murders that took place June 12, 2004 were in fact committed by a serial killer, not OJ Simpson. This possibility of what this film shows was previously raised on CNN but it simply has never been taken seriously elsewhere.
IMO, this film would have been best done as some kind of "documentary" with licensed images, period TV news video and headlines of the time to pose the possibilities that this presents.
The "docudrama" format, esp THIS one, IMO, fails to engage the viewer while presenting at times what appears to be at times a low budget slasher film. Either the director doesn't seem to want the audience to emphasize with the victims or is unable to.
Mena Suvari's performance lacks depth between simply switching from twitchy to vapid. It was real missed opportunity for Suvari who has managed to deliver in other roles. But Nick Stahl rises above expectations. My biggest disappointment in any of these portrayals was the superficial portrayal of Ron Goldman. OJ's character is shown only briefly and the movie does not make any effort of showing him as empathic, however, the detached portrait of the victims left a bad taste in my mouth.
MAJOR PROBLEMS.
Because the things I will list below aren't in the movie they are not "spoilers".
My biggest problem is that the film makes no effort in addressing the elephants in the room. For the premise of this film to be true, then one has to accept a whole list of things.
I'll start with the big one. During the trial the Simpson defense searched for every possible alternative.
If even PART of the information presented in this film were known at the time, Simpson's defense team would have been all over it. They were not. There was ZERO mention of it at or away from the trial (on the media).
To me, it is unbelievable that the "dream team" would have ignored the information presented in this film had it stood up to any scrutiny. I'm *sure* the house *next door* was checked out at the time.
Both OJ and the "dream team" *did* mention drug dealers along with graphic descriptions of their methods both during the trial and on camera.
But that theory is not what *this* film is about. OJ Simpson frequently referred to drug dealers after the trial but no one until now was there ever a extended mention of the things that this movie shows.
Then... OJ wrote a book "If I Did It" (sic). *That* would have been a good place to have presented what's in his movie... only it was not.
Then there is, well, practically everything else that one must ask, "so if this is what happened, then why....?"
Like the timing of the attack with OJ's departure to Chicago. Was that just coincidence? That's not proof of his guilt but that was some coincidence if this movie was true. Then there's the bloody finger. Then the finding of bloody glove, the loud banging on Kato's air conditioner (which remains a mystery of logic to me), the trail of victims blood through his house. Were all these things just coincidences?
I'm not even talking about OJ's history of violence. I will agree that there is a big difference between being a moody wife beater and a premeditated murderer but it's not as if this was out of the blue.
The forensic dept in LA may have been sloppy, but could the gang that couldn't handle their samples as the textbook says really pull off such a conspiracy?
Then the famous Bronco chase. Everyone has something to hide and I could see him panicking, however, let's remember that to most people, he was going to kill himself when that truck stopped. But if not that, then you have a disguise and a failed getaway.
There is no doubt that questions remain unanswered, but this is just too "out there" for this "trial of the century" viewer to be satisfied with.
The ESPN documentary "Made in America" to me is definitive and for a docu-drama mini-series, "The People v. O. J. Simpson" offered a high level of accuracy and surprisingly good performances.
I've seen other presentations proposing others (ones suggesting Al Cowlings, Jason Simpson and Ron Shipp being the real murderers), but among all of these, this ranks the lowest.
Ok, so I will try to keep this short and to the point.
This film tries hard to take it self seriously but fails on so many levels. The story is told from the perspectives of NBS (not sure how this is possible seeing as she was murdered) and some fantasy about an alternative explanation regarding the true killer. (?)
The narrative is so weak and far reaching that you are asked to suspend belief and actually consider this as the actual "true story" of the horrible murders. Despite a few noteworthy names in this stinker (the reappearance of Nick Stahl, to name one) nothing could have helped the awful film.
Such rubbish only serves to diminishe the terrible truth about, what many consider, one of the most notorious murders in American history. Everyone on the planet knows who committed the crime. The attempt to offer up an alternative perspective is sad and desperate.
Don't waste your time.
This film tries hard to take it self seriously but fails on so many levels. The story is told from the perspectives of NBS (not sure how this is possible seeing as she was murdered) and some fantasy about an alternative explanation regarding the true killer. (?)
The narrative is so weak and far reaching that you are asked to suspend belief and actually consider this as the actual "true story" of the horrible murders. Despite a few noteworthy names in this stinker (the reappearance of Nick Stahl, to name one) nothing could have helped the awful film.
Such rubbish only serves to diminishe the terrible truth about, what many consider, one of the most notorious murders in American history. Everyone on the planet knows who committed the crime. The attempt to offer up an alternative perspective is sad and desperate.
Don't waste your time.
Once again this director has made another movie about a real life tragedy. Thank god he didn't throw supernatural elements in this time.
This movie flat out lies about what happened in Nicole's life just to create a narrative. And I totally get this because a movie needs a narrative to work. He obviously thought the real story was boring or something so he just threw in random things to pad the story out. He must have been like "well we know Nicole was a person and we know she died so we have a beginning and an end just fill in the middle with information from articles on Wikipedia".
I imagine her family are pretty mad at this movie. With reason.
I just don't get why you would make another explorative movie like this after the car crash reaction that "haunting of Sharon Tate" got.
Also the acting is a disaster all around. The writing is just boring. The worst line was, referring to Bruce Jenner, something like "Bruce is at some fund raiser...oh that must be a drag". I bet the writer thought he stuck gold with that line. Which is again insulting and not funny.
I hope this is the last of this type of movie he makes because i imagine it must be hard for the family to watch.
This movie flat out lies about what happened in Nicole's life just to create a narrative. And I totally get this because a movie needs a narrative to work. He obviously thought the real story was boring or something so he just threw in random things to pad the story out. He must have been like "well we know Nicole was a person and we know she died so we have a beginning and an end just fill in the middle with information from articles on Wikipedia".
I imagine her family are pretty mad at this movie. With reason.
I just don't get why you would make another explorative movie like this after the car crash reaction that "haunting of Sharon Tate" got.
Also the acting is a disaster all around. The writing is just boring. The worst line was, referring to Bruce Jenner, something like "Bruce is at some fund raiser...oh that must be a drag". I bet the writer thought he stuck gold with that line. Which is again insulting and not funny.
I hope this is the last of this type of movie he makes because i imagine it must be hard for the family to watch.
Words can't describe how much of a revolting experience this was. This is the worst thing i've ever had the displeasure of calling a film. It's more of a cancer. Not only is it completely fictional and disrespectful, but it's so drawn out and the acting is simply bad. If a genie gave me three wishes one would be to give me my 1 hour and 22 mins back, the 2nd would be to give me money back, and the third would be infinite wishes, all of which i would use to destroy every copy and evidence that this "movie" ever existed. Jesus. What a god-awful experience. I need to take a shower after sitting through that. I feel dirty. Do yourself a favor, and DONT WATCH IT. Use that time for something productive, like learning guitar, or how to write a good script.
OK, first the only way to watch this movie is fast forward. Skip the parts of unsubstantiated script writing. Suspend your ability to actually think logically and get either really drunk or stoned. Otherwise you will be left going completely and totally bonkers.
The actors are bad, the script is worst and the whole premise is trash. Not one thread of actual fact-based evidence is presented.
A terrible was of both my time and the productions companies money.
Even O.J. should be ashamed of this make believe.
The actors are bad, the script is worst and the whole premise is trash. Not one thread of actual fact-based evidence is presented.
A terrible was of both my time and the productions companies money.
Even O.J. should be ashamed of this make believe.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizFilmed at some of the actual locations.
- BlooperTakes place in 1994 but numerous 2000s Cars parked on the street after Ron and Nicole finish jogging.
- Citazioni
Nicole Brown Simpson: [on O.J] I'm worried he's gonna kill me one day and he's gonna get away with it.
Kris Kardashian: [scoffs] Oh my God, Nicole!
- Colonne sonoreBig Band Swing
Composed by Art Munson
Courtesy of Partners In Rhyme
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 19.569 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 22 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson (2019) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi