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.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.
Bianca Van Damme
- Detective Leigh
- (as Bianca Brigitte VanDamme)
Sky Liam
- Michael Nigg
- (as Sky Patterson)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Completely fictional, trash. Bad acting. Bad directing. I bet if you did some digging you would find OJ was the financial backer. Calling this movie trash is actually an insult to trash.
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.
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.
Why did u have to put Nicoles name to this? You should have just made it an independent film. OJ is so evidently and obviously guilty of these murders. What an insult to the two deceased and their families. Also what a crap actress cast as Nicole. Mena suvari really?
Yes. It's that bad. Mena Suvari is the Exec Producer for this movie and I wonder where she received funding. This movie is not even worthy of a Lifetime showing. Terrible story, Terrible script, Terrible acting, and Terrible decision of mine to watch. I should have known better. Mena hasn't been in a good movie since American Beauty and it's amazing she's still around.
Did you know
- TriviaFilmed at some of the actual locations.
- GoofsTakes place in 1994 but numerous 2000s Cars parked on the street after Ron and Nicole finish jogging.
- Quotes
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!
- SoundtracksBig Band Swing
Composed by Art Munson
Courtesy of Partners In Rhyme
- How long is The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $19,569
- Runtime
- 1h 22m(82 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content