Waste of time

One of my all time favorites.

Instant Favorite.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

First of all, people, a documentary doesn't present both sides. Documentaries are the media equivalent of a debate argument or a persuasive essay. A documentary presents a claim and then supports it with information. Documentaries are biased by design.For unbiased information, we are supposed to look to the news and journalists. Within the first few minutes of this film, we can see that trust is misplaced. The "journalist" recorded here appears truly deplorable. It is clear the media smeared Knox by printing every fabricated or insinuated tale as though it were fact. Foxy Knoxy? Lucifer-like, satanic witch? Yeah, that's evenhanded journalism assuring a fair trial. *scoff*Drug-fueled sex orgy? Because they smoked a little weed? Puh-leeeease.The investigator comes off as a pompous ass. Knox is an anarchist because she doesn't like being questioned by authorities? Pretty sure only the truly stupid are cooperative when they have been accused of murder.I'm dumbfounded by the people screaming for Knox's head based upon the "damning" physical evidence. You mean they found Knox's DNA and fingerprints in her own home? Wow, what a revelation! Listen, your DNA and fingerprints cover just about every square inch of your residence, including the bedroom of anyone living with you. Skin and hair are everywhere (that's what dust is mostly made of), and don't tell me you never hung out in your roommate's room listening to music, chatting, or smoking a bowl.Knox was acquitted. That means she is presumed innocent. End of story.

Let me put it this way. I had little to no knowledge regarding this case before watching the film, and it still left me strongly convinced of Knox's guilt. It gave me the feeling that it wasn't telling us everything, but I didn't know or get the impression that the filmmakers thought she was innocent, and were trying to portray her as such. Like already mentioned, I knew next to nothing about the case and I was still very easily convinced that Knox had at least some form of involvement. I found out after watching it that the directors think she's innocent. The problem is the film leaves out multiple pieces of incriminating evidence, yet has convinced some people that Knox is innocent. The film claims itself to be neutral, and for a while it is. But it eventually puts too much emphasis on a supposed lack of Knox's DNA found in Kercher's room, and leaves out forms of DNA evidence against both of them, a number of different testimonies from the night of the murder and the following morning, as well as many other things INCLUDING what I think might be the strongest piece of evidence against Knox and Sollecito; what happened when authorities first arrived to the crime scene. The film makes it look like they phoned authorities who then quickly arrived, and then the odd behavior began with Knox and Sollecito noticeably expressing a suspicious amount of affection towards each other directly outside the murder scene. But clear reasoning to suspect Knox's guilt actually started even before that. The postal police ironically arrived first, due to having found both of Kercher's phones. Knox and Sollecito then show no concern for Meredith's safety and make no mention of her door being locked. Eventually Knox claims that it was normal for Kercher to leave her door locked, which has been refuted by all of the other roommates. Now, that may not seem like much at first, but think about what her story is. She claims that before phoning police and anyone else arriving, she began to panic, knocked multiple times on Kercher's door, eventually climbing the balcony to try to see into her window, and even getting Sollecito to try to kick the door down. So we're trying as hard as possible to peak into windows and bust the door down to make sure she's okay, but when authorities suddenly arrive due to finding her phones in a random backyard, they don't freak the hell out? Or even mention her door being locked?! It was mentioned in the phone call! The phone call to police that oddly did not happen until after the postal police had arrived. They claimed otherwise, but the full timeline for that morning has been established based on several different testimonies and phone records.If they were innocent, there's no doubt that they would have instantly entered a stronger state of panic when realizing her phones had been ditched, and directed the postal police's attention to the locked door. Instead, Knox diverts their attention away from the door after it's discovered to be locked, with the flat-out lie that Kercher commonly left it that way. Everybody else claims that she had never once left her door locked before. You may ask, well why would Amanda do this? It's pretty simple. Cold feet. Authorities arrived even quicker than they had planned, before they phoned them themselves, and reality set in. Knox got nervous and wasn't ready for authorities to find the body, so she tried to buy more time and shift their attention away from her room. Unlike a lot of users who are convinced of Knox's guilt, I would still recommend the film. It really upsets me that it has convinced people that she's innocent, but due to the scale of her role, believing Knox is guilty makes it an even creepier and more memorably haunting experience. Imagine how amazing of a documentary this would have been if it had actually been a neutral exploration that presented allllll of the significant evidence and allowed the viewer to decide on their own. It feels like a rare opportunity to make a documentary that very largely features new interviews from two people convicted twice of murder (that many people still believe are guilty). Their footage should have given everyone that haunting, at least suspicious sensation that it gave me, but I see now how the filmmakers irresponsibly structured the film to have you ultimately be on their side and feel sympathy for them. I'd still recommend it. It's creepy, gorgeous, and quite thought-provoking in many aspects. But I stress that you go to themurderofmeredithkercher.com afterwards and read into all of the evidence. Knowing what the film leaves out, makes it more enjoyable and less enjoyable at the same time. I don't know why the directors are convinced of Knox's innocence, but there is significantly more to the case than what the film shows. And that is an understatement. With all things considered, the idea that Knox and Sollecito had zero involvement is absolute insanity. Unsavory qualities you may see in a journalist or detective are irrelevant. Yes, the media acted ridiculous. I don't disagree. But at the end of the day, that really changes none of the hard evidence. Ultimately, a technically proficient documentary that exploits very interesting and personal aspects, but without giving you the whole story. It's cool that Knox is in it, but all forms of significantly incriminating evidence against her and Sollecito still should have been provided, and that clearly isn't what they did. It still serves as an essential fact that Guede did not act alone and that a lot of evidence (including eye-witness testimonies that the film excludes) points to three people being involved. I would love to know who the directors think the other two are.

4 million dollar book deal...good promotion...make money for slicing someones throat...it's a west coast thing OJ...el libbo netflix' obsession with Trump has to be in there as well...pathetic....she's not married? go figure..good night hubby, don't worry about this knife here...now go to sleep mofugga..

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.