StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

peppej Wtf...that was my first thought when I saw the journalist describing the scenario like it was book of fiction or something. Even if he was satisfied with getting the scoop...a normal (emotional) person wouldn't laugh and in the same time describe it like a perfect "media-story". He seems to be an awful human being...!...and a bad journalist admitting he wrote articles in the case without doing any background check...just like many others do in social media today. A young girl died and that laugh, that was the most disturbing in this documentary!It was good that the chaos at the crime scene was recorded, that was enough to realize how non-professional the police was. And the the evidence they found after 48 day...wtf again...really!?!A good example of bad police work and how awful media can be...shame on both police and media!

consciousgeometry I watched this completely spontaneously yesterday, without knowing what precisely it was about. Expecting nothing special, I can now say that I was very pleasantly surprised. Aside from what seemed to me a very on- the-nose way of building up tension at the beginning that had me rolling my eyes a bit (I expect someone who knows even a bit about the case would react very differently), this is a very solid documentary.As I see it, the most interesting aspects of this story are not the intricacies of the murder case itself- the collection and interpretation of clues and such. It quickly becomes more about how the media reacts to an "exotic" case (or is trying its hardest to make it exotic) like this and how it impacts the workings of a possibly incompetent police- and justice-system. I believe this was the decided intention of the makers of this documentary: They manage to pretty elegantly blend the human angle (the immediate experience of those involved in the case), the 'mystery angle' (uncovering what actually happened) and the bigger picture of how hyperbolic, borderline insane reporting on a case can shift the public opinion and potentially derail investigations in a very real way. The cinematography and editing are also excellently executed - the shots are stylish, but also convey information relevant to what's going on (as opposed to being vacuously flashy, as I've often seen in crime-related documentaries).Regarding the 1-star reviews (this may contain a few "spoilers"): I'm glad I didn't decide to not watch the film because of the many angry negative reviews here on IMDb. A cursory reading of most of them makes apparent that the criticism isn't really focused on the craftsmanship or the entertainment-value of this documentary but rather on a bias the filmmakers may or may not have towards displaying the titular Amanda Knox in a much more positive light than she deserves. If this really were the case, it would constitute a valid criticism, given that this is a documentary. But from what I've read the accusations made in these reviews are far from substantial and most of the people making them seem to have been deeply emotionally caught up in this case for years and obviously made up their mind a long time ago. For example, I've read multiple times that the documentary supposedly withheld "important" information, like the captioning of a myspace photo of Amanda holding a gun with the words "The Nazi Inside", or that the she once uploaded a short story of a woman getting raped, somewhere online. These reviewers apparently believe that this is damming evidence of her being a murderous sociopath. I'm baffled by this reasoning - it implies that every edgy teen on 4chan or reddit is an enormous danger to society.Regardless - even if after watching the documentary you are not convinced of Knox' innocence, the repeated revisions of the verdicts made by the Italian courts plainly show that this case was handled extremely incompetently, which in and of itself is worthy of reflection and discussion. I will concede that the way some people, especially Italian investigators and lawyers, were presented made them look like morons, or at least somewhat misguided - but I'm not sure how much of this can be attributed to the makers of the documentary trying to paint a false picture. I had the impression that what I got was a somewhat exaggerated, but essentially real picture of who these characters were.Anyways, a documentary well worth your time, especially as it brutally demonstrates the irrational malleability of public opinion - and this is true whether you consider Amanda guilty or not after having seen it.Edit: The reviews here are obviously being brigaded by people who dislike this film with a passion. Very detailed and well written positive reviews (not necessarily mine) that gave the movie a score of seven or higher have been overwhelmingly declared "not helpful" in spite of the movie having a pretty high rating here.

Karen Pruett When I first heard that there was going to be a new movie called "Amanda Knox" I met it with a healthy dose of skepticism, I had become hardened to what mainstream and tabloid media had produced about this young lady and her Italian friend in the past decade; I had learned not trust the opinions of people who read only headlines.But I must say I was not only pleasantly surprised by the outcome, I welcomed it gladly like a breath of fresh air. You see, I am a researcher for the advocacy that helped Amanda and Raffaele correct misinformation in social media, I volunteered to read the "mountain of evidence" against them.I know the "complex" first hand, so McGinn and Blackhurst's use of "simple" is brilliant.The guiltless in context with the people guilty of robbing them of their freedom and rights. It evoked a visceral reaction in me that was a surprise, the usual eye-rolling annoyance gave way to white hot anger because the film was so intimate. It brought the antagonists right into my home and, yes, I did yell "FU" at the TV a few times.Amanda and Raffaele are those people you saw on film, no acting, the real thing. Just two ordinary people who met everyone's nightmare – duplicitous authorities. Those people you see against that stark backdrop are exactly who they say they are, McGinn and Blackhurst captured their personalities perfectly.They captured the essence of Giuliano Mignini, Valter Biscotti and Nick Pisa as well. It sickened me to watch them preen for the audience, but the very important point I want to make is that the public's dislike of Pisa, despite his drooling over headlines, is misplaced. Pisa is the tabloid jackal you see, but at least he is honest about it and that authenticity sets him aside from the other antagonists who have cloaked themselves in respectability; wolves in sheep's clothing.If my opinion matters to you, then kindly pay close attention to Prosecutor Mignini if you have not yet seen this film. To those who have, please watch it again and witness "Amanda Knox" parting the curtain to show you official confirmation bias at work in a justice system.The stunning arrogance of Guede's lawyer Biscotti, for example, about being the "better attorney" for the murderer while the uninformed public knows nothing about the Italian fast-track trial system vs. the regular trial system. Can you imagine being found guilty in a court of law without being represented by a lawyer or being able to cross-examine your accuser? Consider the legal plight of Raffaele and Amanda, outside looking in, during Guede's trials while Biscotti swept their Constitutional rights away.Giuliano Mignini's interview was the most telling, he is right that he knows Italian law. So well, in fact, that he used it to pull the wool over the eyes of Raffaele's well-connected family (including sister the cop) just long enough to force the young man to "have his day in court" as mandated by law. He also pulled the wool over the US Embassy in Italy by not declaring Amanda an official suspect until after her arrest, though she was under surveillance, wiretapped and Perugian authorities were preparing to interrogate her and Raffaele both. Mignini's signature on the detention forms was inked mere hours before help would arrive for both naive students, and those papers are the tip of the legal iceberg. Because of the wiretapping Mignini knew his unfettered access to the pair was coming to an end as soon as Amanda's mother arrived.I was most surprised to see Mignini's mantra from court transcripts for the world to see: "Let's consider." "Let's imagine." "If only there was a video in the room." Well, that last part is not in the film, only the case file along with many other examples of this so-called professional imagining "what may have happened." His penchant to "make up dialogue" for Meredith and Amanda was also present and this man has made up many disgusting things; that is without question.Then there is the prosecutor's denial of knowing how Lumumba's name was fed to Amanda during the interrogation in contrast to his confirmed presence just outside the room; while he was engaged in advising the police. Mignini is provably part of the more than a dozen Perugian law enforcement members present while she was abused, broken, and forced to sign away her life in a foreign language. It is heartbreaking to see the part of the film when Amanda finally realized that nothing she said mattered to him, all that mattered was his opinion.So Mignini knows intimately how Lumumba's name was introduced and his denial of that fact in this film is pure gold.You see the barest hint of his Madonna/Whore Complex in the film as well, osmotic evaluation of the legal dossier reveals a dirty old man entertaining the court with the latest script from his "soap opera." The scared foreign kid is "crazy," the party-animal British Girls are "proper," and the murder victim is "virginal." Satan, the Mason's, Reefer Madness, Catfights, Guede's Poop, it's all there. The man in the mirror is an arrogant official, a devil some would say, who lied to the victim's family and accused innocent people of a crime he concocted in his own head.McGinn and Blackhurst did a great job of taking a complex issue and simplifying it in ninety minutes. I invite you to take that time, kickback with a cocktail in the comfort of your own home and see how easy it is for an authority to scoop kids right off the street. Amanda believes the public thinks she is a monster, but the most frightening monsters are the powerful ones pulling strings behind our backs.Turn away from Amanda and Raffaele; and see the monster that stalked them. Giuliano Mignini.

George X. If you are looking for definitive answers, this documentary will disappoint you. But if you want to become familiar with this case and see how justice can easily go from blind to hobbled when the media are involved, this is definitely worth a watch.Although it clearly supports Amanda Knox's side of the story and strongly advocates her innocence, this film isn't so much about the verdict. Rather, it highlights how flawed a crime investigation can be when the media and the public put such immense pressure on officers and detectives. How amoral and ruthless the media can be for the sake of selling "the perfect story", and how the public's opinion is so easily and quickly shaped because of it.The sheer indifference that journalist Nick Pisa shows when proclaiming how Rudy Guede's story "wasn't interesting" was very telling. Also, it is completely baffling how the head of the investigation ended up being promoted after doing such a stunningly bad job in this case.In the end, whether you side with Knox or not, this film -while not necessarily having the depth that one might seek in such a documentary- clearly demonstrates how rushed and weak the case against her was, the product of a botched investigation fueled by media frenzy.