Opiniones de usuarios

Amanda Knox was an American student in Italy whose flatmate was murdered. On being questioned, Knox lied to the police. She was subsequnetly convicted of murder amid lurid press coverage. However, the DNA evidence was weak and (on the basis of this movie) the chief prosecutor was something of a fantastist, with a worrying tendency to infer beyond the evidence. Knox appealed; the American press took up her case, ridiculing Italian justice and making a defence of the investigation, ironically, a point of patriotism for some Italians. In the end, Knox was exonnerated, and if this documentary is to be believed, this was the correct verdict. The film features a self-incriminating interview with muck-raking journalist Nick Pisa, a man who seems utterly unwilling to accept that his job carries any level of moral responsibility. Otherwise, it's basically a very sad story, made worse by the years it took to reach the legal conclusion.

Nick Pisa is very annoying. You´ll hate him by the end.

It is interesting to see how the media and journalists have reported false information and inflamed the public, but still exempt themselves from guilt. The journalist who was interviewed appears to have neither a sensitivity to the victim, nor to the accused falsely. And it is ridiculous how Americans want to intervene in everything, as if everyone depends on them. How superb.

On the morning November 2, 2007, 21-year old Meredith Kercher's lifeless body was discovered in the room of a house that she shared with 3 other women while attending school as part of the Erasmus student exchange program in Perugia, Italy. She'd only been in Perugia a few months. One of the housemates present at the scene of discovery was 20-year old Amanda Knox of Seattle, Washington, also a student and the person from whom this Netflix documentary takes it's name.

Can't say that I was really looking forward to watching this, especially after finding out that it's producers were somewhat deceptive in their claims of showing what they had said would be an unbiased and neutral take in what has been one of the most divisive cases to emerge in the age of the internet and social media. Turns out they'd been advocates for Knox's innocence since at least 2011, when Judge Pratillo Hellmann acquitted Knox and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito at their first appeal. Why not state your pro-innocence bias upfront? Nothing wrong with that, if you truly believe it, but why state otherwise? And why also state you've got new revelations about the case when you really don't? In fact there was more left out than was put in, but then 90 minutes couldn't possibly cover the roller-coaster of the 3-tiered Italian judiciary system, so the documentary must be selectively streamlined. And boy was it. In a week that started with the first 2016 Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and the question rises about the inability of the news media to "fact-check", "Amanda Knox" finishes the week off with the same question; Did anybody bother to fact-check? Sure, there's a few facts sprinkled here and there, but they're mostly sugar-coated or given short thrift. But short thrift on facts is one thing, glaring omissions of them is another. People are given short thrift as well, most noticeably Meredith Kercher. The documentary almost treats her like an inconvenience to the main story of superstar celebrity Amanda Knox, who herself can't even get facts straight and contradicts her own documented statements several times throughout. Her personal script seems to change almost as much as her alibis did in 2007. And then there's her on screen, um, presence. She doesn't really have any and looks uncomfortable, all the while making her come across as very unlikable. How much is acting and how much is real emotion? With Knox it's hard to tell. Same goes goes for Knifeboy, excuse me, Sollecito. He's almost as unlikable as Knox. And was he stoned when they filmed his interviews? As for Nick Pisa, I had him pegged for scummy trash-journalist years ago and the documentary confirms this, but I don't think the makers of "Amanda Knox" realized that they would be proving his point as well. They're actually doing what he'll be blamed for and that's creating a "story" to mislead while omitting facts (like the fact that Italy's highest court did not exonerate Knox by any means, but that's another documentary) in order to grab headlines and cheap soundbites. The words are different, but the story's the same. They also don't quite pull off their efforts in dichotomy with Giuliano Mignini. The uninformed will see him as the other main villain, but anyone who has followed this tragic case knows better. Overall, "Amanda Knox" is a bad piece of Pubic Relations propaganda that certainly won't sway anyone who believes that Knox, Sollecito and Rudy Guede all participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher, but will certainly convince the selfie generation that, "OMG, she's so totally innocent, I can't believe it". And neither do I.

If you're looking for a piece of media to clear the confusing facts for you - this is not it.

The documentary is clearly very biased towards Amanda, making her the sole focus of the documentary and not the case - I am aware that it is titled after her name and therefore about her, but I feel the documentary unjustly shifted the focus of finding the truth from the case to a more "we're trying to prove she's innocent" film.

Would recommend to anyone looking for a good entertainment documentary, but in my opinion it does nothing but feed into the idea that Knox is innocent and absolves her of any involvement within the crime, feeding in to her dramatics.

It is very clear that the police wanted to solve the case quickly and the disgusting British press put all the wood in the fire as possible. Who says she's a liar has gone through something similar to know what her reaction would be like? Easy to judge, hard to be on the other side being judged by cretins who believe everything they read in tabloids.

I've read a number of negative reviews, all because they don't agree with the verdict and therefore the documentary didn't give them the answers they wanted to hear. Quite a few of the 1/10 and 2/10 reviews on here should be taken with a pinch of salt for that reason.

Firstly this isn't a documentary that will go on to become a classic, neither will be on a must see documentary list in 10 years time. It does focus on two very important aspects, flaws in the police investigation and also the media involvement with often sensationalist reporting. It shows how the legal system can almost breakdown when policing and reporting isn't done to a high standard. It's not just a matter of "who done it" anymore.

The documentary does a great job of portraying the police opinion from the outset, that Amanda Knox was guilty, even before they had evidence. The second aspect of this is the DNA evidence and how it impacted the verdicts and acquittals. It gives a real insight into why DNA evidence can fall apart. It reminded me a little of making a murderer for this reason and the case focus on DNA.

The media coverage and commentary by the Daily Mail journalist was also really interesting. Throughout it demonstrated just how important their sensational headlines changed public opinion of the case.

The documentary itself does a fine job of presenting the evidence. The issue is how it follows Knox and at times becomes a soapbox for her fame. I think it could have been a little more tasteful when interviewing her, maybe giving her less screen time was the answer.

Overall a great watch for anyone who loves crime documentaries. It shows how policing efficiency and the media in today's world can transform cases.

A quick and concise retelling of the Amanda Knox story. The interviewees were relevant to the case and provided insight into the story. The level of information given is thought provoking but not overwhelming, a good middle ground. The timeline of the case is presented well and allows the documentary to have a good flow. Overall, a good documentary on a wild story.

I don't know if Amanda is guilty or innocent. Apparently, the Italian courts had trouble making up their mind as well. In watching this "documentary", I had hoped to view a balanced picture with all of the evidence discussed. Instead, I saw a film that was written to promote Amanda Knox's profile as spokesperson of the wrongly convicted. It was so blatantly one-sided that it convinced me of nothing and left me with only more questions.

If you feel strongly that Amanda is innocent, you will enjoy this lovely piece of marketing.

And if you feel she is guilty, you will be creeped-out by her final smile, which is incongruous with the speech she had just delivered.

In fact Knox is very likely guilty. This "documentary doesn't even go near Knox's many proven false statements or her racist attempt to frame a black guy.

funny how Knox is a cause celebre of the left, and htese film makers are that, when she is a racist and despicable enabler of rape and murder

She is not guilty because why you will kill your friend and broke the window to go out while you have the key of door I'm with amanda.

This is a good documentary for a brief look into the infamous story of Amanda Knox, and I particularly like the way they have this led by interview pieces to camera with Amanda herself. However, I feel as though the documentary was almost slightly biased and didn't spend enough time looking into the other avenues of how the situation came about. It's worth a watch for sure, Amanda is an odd and interesting character to watch, but don't expect edge-of-seat gripping.

The Amanda Knox story is, historically, a very divisive crime story, and the public opinion that has become enveloped in the "truth" has evolved to relatively toxic sides. Either you think she is innocent, or she is guilty. But as one of the first lines spoken in this masterful documentary presents, from Knox herself: Either she is a psychopath in sheep's clothing, or she is you. And both are equally terrifying. This incredible dichotomy of a revelation is expertly told and discovered in the Netflix-original documentary, that is engrossing to the last second. The editing, the cinematography, and the interviews of some of the key players of the crime are all must-sees.

First of all, to those who say it is disrespectful to the victim, you might be right. Then again you could say that about all true crime documentaries.

The ultimate verdict on this depends on whether you think she is guilty or innocent. If she is guilty it would be celebrating a psychopath, If she is innocent her name deserves to be cleared and this documentary can help with that.

I read up on the case before I watched this and I made up my mind.

I think she is innocent.

There was no DNA evidence from either of them found in the room of the murder, on the murder weapon or on the victim's body.

Guede had every reason to lie if blaming them could exonerate him or spreading guilt could reduce his sentence. Innocent people don't tend to leave the country the next day.

There is no way her or her boyfriend could have been involved with her rape and murder without leaving some DNA evidence.

With no other suspects in sight the police pressed her and her boyfriend as much as they possibly could. Whenever there is a tragedy the longer it takes for the police to arrest someone, the worse it looks. Her and her boyfriend were easy targets. She was young, in a foreign country being screamed at by police for days at a time. If the police make it seem like your options are 5 years for a crime you know you didn't commit or 50 years for a crime you know you didn't commit, who wouldn't eventually crack and tell them what they wanted to hear?

Even if you were to believe she was a psychopath, she clearly isn't stupid. I think she could come up with a better plan than 'lets taunt her, get some guy we barely know to rape and kill her in our own house, let him escape to Germany while we stay here and call the police without covering any of it up'

Honestly, I think the Italian police got scared and didn't want to look stupid so they did everything they could to make it look like they were right all along. Instead of admit they made a mistake and had rushed to judgement. I think this girl was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the Italian police and world media have ruined her life. The fact that she looks like a movie star could be the very reason this happened to her. A beautiful girl is a deadly murderer makes for a better story than, was accused of a murder she didn't commit because the Italian police are idiots.

On the whole, this may be a bit insensitive to the victim (like all true crime), but, if you read up on the case she is clearly innocent.

Amanda Knox and her lover were very clearly innocent. I don't doubt the good will of Italian prosecutors, but the lead prosecutor, despite his protestations to the contrary, was obviously indulging in dubious speculation from the start, for instance the notion that only a female murderer would cover up a body. Knox was very young and callow at the time and does come off as a little odd. But marine being 20 years old and faced with this situation. Possibly the person who comes across the worst is the British journalist Nick Pisa, who shows no self-reflection or concern about the damage done by tabloid media. He's a shallow careerist with no moral compass.

Ok, it turns the interest to this case.

But the documentary is nothing to base an opinion upon. Of course it is interesting to see how the world sees this case (we have never left medieval...), feelings. What hit me most was the interrogation. It reminded me of "In the name of the Father".

So, I searched for more information and found the book of Douglas Preston, "The forgotten killer". In this book, it is the analysis of John Douglas which seems most analytic and believable. At least plausible and rational, based on the data given. So, I believe that Rafaelle and Amanda are innocent of this crime and that it was a burglary gone wrong. But more than that I feel deeply sorry for the family of Meredith and all families who have been violantly robbed of their children.

I bet the same people still think Maddie McCann's parents are guilty. The press are trash, the police in this case were trash. Thank god Amanda is free!

There's nothing I love more than learning about a new murder-mystery. There are certain cases that I have spent days reading about and trying to reach my own conclusion on. Some are undoubtedly more interesting than others. I knew very little about the 'Amanda Knox' story going into this documentary, so it was very interesting to learn all the facts and come to my own conclusion.

It's a classic murder-mystery in the sense that there are things that don't make sense on both sides of the ledger. Both guilty and not guilty could easily be argued by anyone who knew enough about the case. If I had to lean in a direction by the end of the documentary I would have said not guilty, but I'm far from 100% certain on that. Anyone that lies in their statements to police is very hard to ever fully accept as innocent in my opinion.

'Amanda Knox' does a good job of keeping things simple and easy to follow, but a flaw it has is occasionally leaving out information that would be great to know. There were times when things were brought up, like the detective saying the break-in was clearly staged, and then were never touched on again. No reason is given why it was clearly staged, just that it was. This is very annoying when you're trying to come to your own conclusion on things.

There were some interesting, and at time deplorable, people featured in the interviews. Both the detective and the journalist said some bizarre and extremely arrogant things at times. This isn't a mark against the documentary in any way, they can't control how people come across, it's simply an interesting fact.

I found this a fascinating documentary about an extremely interesting case. I'm glad I watched this and became familiar with it so I can now continue to look into the case and fine tune my opinion. There are far worse ways you could spend 90 minutes than watching 'Amanda Knox'.