Amanda Knox

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'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.

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.

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.

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.