And that's exactly what this is, combining a couple different bs theories. This shouldn't be seen, so I'm just going to spoil everything and explain why it's so wrong.
The film (and it pains me to even call it a film), depicts Glen Rogers as a man with a dissociated identity named Charlie that compels him to kill people. He paints Nicole's condo, has sex with her, develops a bloodlust for her, and then bumps into OJ shortly before the murders take place.
The real Glen Rogers once claimed to have killed Nicole Brown, but he has also claimed to have killed around 70 women while evidence has only been found regarding a few. Regardless of what his moron brother says, investigators have confirmed that he was not in a location at the time where he could have been the murderer of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
Now Charlie is the name of OJ's non-existent friend that assists him with the murder in the hypothetical chapter of the book If I Did It. The book never got published, but the entire thing is online. I've read that chapter and it depicts a friend of OJ's named Charlie driving over to his place to tell him about Nicole and Faye Resnick's behavior, the two going over to Bundy together to check things out, and Charlie handing him the knife right before the murders.
OJ was asked about this chapter of the book in an interview and he summarized what it says. At the end of the film, this idiot director shows brief clips of it, taken completely out of context, to make it look like the bs you just saw is supported.
On top of how ridiculous and offensive this all is, the film is also horribly made on every basic technical level. And while there was obviously zero care given regarding being factual, I was still amazed with how off everything was. Felt like the director was the one person who didn't follow the case. The condo looks nothing like the real condo aside from having a gated door, her dog isn't even the right breed, it drastically exaggerates how much of a friendship her and Goldman had, and I could go on forever but it's not worth it. Do not watch this.
The film (and it pains me to even call it a film), depicts Glen Rogers as a man with a dissociated identity named Charlie that compels him to kill people. He paints Nicole's condo, has sex with her, develops a bloodlust for her, and then bumps into OJ shortly before the murders take place.
The real Glen Rogers once claimed to have killed Nicole Brown, but he has also claimed to have killed around 70 women while evidence has only been found regarding a few. Regardless of what his moron brother says, investigators have confirmed that he was not in a location at the time where he could have been the murderer of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
Now Charlie is the name of OJ's non-existent friend that assists him with the murder in the hypothetical chapter of the book If I Did It. The book never got published, but the entire thing is online. I've read that chapter and it depicts a friend of OJ's named Charlie driving over to his place to tell him about Nicole and Faye Resnick's behavior, the two going over to Bundy together to check things out, and Charlie handing him the knife right before the murders.
OJ was asked about this chapter of the book in an interview and he summarized what it says. At the end of the film, this idiot director shows brief clips of it, taken completely out of context, to make it look like the bs you just saw is supported.
On top of how ridiculous and offensive this all is, the film is also horribly made on every basic technical level. And while there was obviously zero care given regarding being factual, I was still amazed with how off everything was. Felt like the director was the one person who didn't follow the case. The condo looks nothing like the real condo aside from having a gated door, her dog isn't even the right breed, it drastically exaggerates how much of a friendship her and Goldman had, and I could go on forever but it's not worth it. Do not watch this.