just get sabotaged again and again by moments like this. Any feminism points the filmmakers thought they were providing by showcasing Nicole's terror and resolve in starting a life away from O.J. In one of the more wince-inducing moments, Nicole admits to her therapists that she misses the sex with her abusive ex-husband. It feels like I was watching character assassinating propaganda, especially recalling O.J.'s crazed accusations of Nicole sleeping with every many she could find because, to him, she must be a whore. The next time we see them together they're already sleeping together. He makes a shifty statement about past work experience being "here and there" and she hires him. First, she meets Glen in her neighbor's driveway, having never seen him before, and invites him into her home and offers him a job, and all of this is miraculously before she even knows the man's last name, an address, or references.
OJ SIMPSON MURDER MOVIE MOVIE
The portrayal makes Nicole look like the biggest moron and the movie seems to flirt with the insidious idea that she might have invited her murder onto herself. Because if the filmmakers were trying to do anything beyond gaining craven attention, they would present a more compelling relationship between Nicole and Glen.
The entire inclusion of this "Could it be someone else?" theory is for crass sensationalism. Add Glen talking to a voice in his head, a dark impulse he calls "Charlie," and that's the only connective tissue the movie provides for this new theory. What exactly is the purpose of presenting this alternative theory, which is predicated on the flimsiest of even a whisper of evidence Glen Rogers' brother says that mentally disturbed Glen once told him he killed Nicole Brown. First off, the very nature of this book is disgusting, but the fact that this movie uses it as a foundation to posit an alternative theory that lessens O.J.'s blood-stained culpability is like re-telling the Ted Bundy's account where a frisky and mischievous friend was really the one consuming people. says he was simply blacking out that night as an unexpected accomplice. says he might have met a friend named "Charlie" and it was "Charlie" who did the killing and O.J. is dangerous and jealous and protected by his personal relationships with many of the local law enforcement, but this is mitigated by the very act of using O.J.'s own half-baked alibi assertion from the infamous cash-grab hypothetical literary tome, "If I Did It." In this highly disingenuous "hypothetical," O.J. The very nature of its premise alleviates the guilt from Nicole's abusive, controlling husband. From there, Glen stalks Nicole and terrorizes her to her very end. Except Glen is a disturbed drifter who will eventually be known as the Casanova Killer who had murdered many blonde women. She meets a painter named Glen (Nick Stahl) and invites him to paint her home, to make it more her new sanctuary. Nicole Brown (Mena Suvari) is trying to start her life over after divorcing her famous husband, O.J. This sleazy thriller is rife with bad decisions, bad faith, and victim blaming to its very nasty core. The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson was always destined to be a bad movie with these people involved with these intentions. This filmmaker wasn't exactly presenting nuanced and sympathetic portraits of famous dead celebrities, and instead was exploiting their fame and their famous demises for cheap genre thrills. As soon as I read about the director of The Haunting of Sharon Tate's follow-up movie, I knew it was destined for a spot on my worst of 2020 list.
0 kommentar(er)
