I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

hyped garbage

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

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.

This white trash BS PR fake "documentary" is not worth watching for even one second. The reason why is because it's now legally certain that Knox and Raffaele were both "there" at the crime scene at the time of the murder, and proved that Guede assaulted Meredith and helped kill her with accomplices, are we now to assume that the lying Knox and Sollecito were not the accomplices, but that one or two other criminals were also on the premises at the same time and were helping Guede kill Meredith? That stretches credibility. This ruling is unfathomable. I can only imagine the reaction of the Kerchers and of their Attorney Maresca. This ruling defies common sense. It seems to imply that Rudy committed the killing but that Knox and Raffaele were too afraid of him to tell the police, and instead helped him hide the crime at the risk of themselves being prosecuted for it? That fear alone was the inducement to run an eight year long charade of lies and dissimulation, not to mention years of prison? When Raf's father is connected to important people and when Knox's family could afford a PR campaign to reach television? Yet Knox is so afraid of Guede counter-accusing her and of Guede being believed, that she has denied everything and even covered for Guede? Preposterous. Does Cassation think that Rudy set up the false burglary for his cover story, but then Knox and Raf lied to police about it for him? If Knox and Raf weren't complicit in the crime but were there during its commission, what were they doing during the murder? Playing guitar and smoking weed? Knox and Raf overlooked Guede tracking blood around the cottage, heard Meredith's scream but did nothing to aid her, too afraid to aid her and later ashamed of their cowardice? Were they threatened by Guede with the same fate? Or if they were hurting her along with Guede so that she did scream, they are still innocent? And why would Knox be washing Meredith's blood off her hands into the bidet and washing up blood from the murder scene rather than call police and denounce Guede as the killer? Knox could have begged for police protection She had the USA to flee to. Raf's father could protect him, his sister was Carabinieri! No. If Knox was washing Meredith's blood off her hands, Knox was hiding her part in the murder. This ruling contradicts its own reasoning. It has proved the greater yet says it can't prove the lesser. Please watch a much better film entitled "New Amanda Knox Documentary" on YouTube.

The movie and the reviews here show how people can be so adamant about the need to punish somebody for a crime that they buy into the most ludicrous theories. Amanda Knox was persecuted by the police in Perugia for committing the transgression of being a "loose woman". What do we know about this case? - Rudy Guede's DNA was at the scene, a fact that makes no sense unless he was involved in the murder - In a Skype chat with a friend, Guede said Amanda wasn't there. - Guede had a history of violence and breaking in to homes. - High pressure tactics were used by the police to get Raffaele to change his alibi for Amanda, and to trick Amanda into a vague confession - The vague confession by Amanda implicated her boss, but this theory was discarded by the police. Instead, Guede was inserted into the case while the confession by Amanda was treated as evidence of her guilt. - the treatment of the DNA evidence by the Italian police was atrociously sloppyMany 1-star reviews are being given by people who are convinced of Amanda's guilt. They say that the film is "biased", apparently because the filmmakers didn't give equal weight to a pro-guilt side. Well...that's not what "biased" means. Yes, the filmmakers clearly feel that Amanda Knox is innocent. You know who else does? The Italian courts. To make claims of bias, you have to go further than to say that a person has an opinion you disagree with. You have to show that they view evidence in a partial fashion: discarding evidence that disagrees with predetermined conclusions while overstating the importance of evidence that agrees with them. There is bias in this case, as the documentary clearly shows. The prosecutor pursued a case against Amanda Knox for clearly irrational reasons, and the theories he uses are inconsistent and often ludicrous. His interviews are the most painful parts of the movie. He says things like "A female murdered covers the body of a female victim; a man does not. That's why I suspected a woman from the start." This is ludicrous. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecitto lost years of their lives to this nonsense - emotionally driven aversion to evidence-based pursuit of the truth. Bravo to the filmmakers for giving this story the care and attention it deserves.One final note: shame on all the tabloid journalists who fed the frenzy of insanity. The interview of the journalist who published Amanda's diary shows that he feels no shame at what he did - that he feels comfortable with the violation of her privacy. I wonder if he'll ever figure out what he did wrong here.

Named the "trial of the decade," the story of Amanda Knox first captivated the world in 2007 following the gruesome murder of British student, Meredith Kercher. Since then, the case has been picked apart and reviewed by innumerable forensic analysts and murder mystery enthusiasts alike. The film has garnered high praise and popularity since its release on September 30th of this year, making it clear that many people still have a vested interest in this story. Much like the JonBenét Ramsey case, the case of Amanda Knox was made into a grand spectacle by the media. It has even been suggested that the media may have swayed the ruling of the Italian court. This is supported by the film. In it we see the media put pressure on the government to apprehend the murderer quickly, but this makes investigators sloppy and they make careless mistakes. Evidence is not properly preserved and this in the end radically changes the lives of the two main suspects: Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Murder mysteries and "whodunit's" are astonishingly popular among today's film consumers. Everybody wants to play detective, and in the Amanda Knox case, everybody did. Every single person from sea to shining sea had an opinion. The people of Perugia, Italy cried out for justice for Meredith Kercher and then the world followed suit. Again, this is arguably one of the reasons that the case played out as it did. Two convictions, two acquittals, and still no definitive answer as to who killed Meredith.There's always an angle; people, architecture, and yes, cameras. The directors of this film interestingly chose to make use of subtle camera angles and techniques for a variety of purposes throughout the film. The use of intermittent stills of Italian countryside, flashes of newspaper headlines or clips of a busy Perugian street made for nice visual imagery as well as good transitions. Most notably, however, were the peculiar camera angles in the early parts of the film. For example, during interviews with infamous journalist, Nick Pisa, who reported on the case from start to finish, the camera awkwardly hesitates on him as he smiles crookedly following his speech on the controversial way that the media got their hands on Amanda's diary she kept while in prison. This paints Nick in a negative light and even proliferates the stereotype of journalists as slimy, shady creatures, and ultimately garners more sympathy for Amanda, as she was the one being attacked in these publications. This same technique was also used with similar intent when interviewing Detective Mignini, another figure in the story who is generally disliked. Both Pisa and Mignini were misogynistic egomaniacs. They both profited from Amanda's demise. Throughout the entirety of the case they could both be seen basking in the glory of their attacks on Amanda. While Mignini used fear tactics and physical abuse in questioning, just outside the prison walls Pisa typed away feverishly at his computer printing phrases like, "femme fatale," "Foxy Knoxy," and other sexist remarks in what has been called, a "character assassination." Lastly, in my opinion, the film was very effective. It certainly had a target audience: those who have always been interested in the case, but I believe it also drew in others who enjoy documentaries, Netflix subscribers in general (since it was well advertised) and of course your run of the mill murder mystery fans as we discussed in the beginning. For many, this film helped them to see the case differently. With all cards and evidence out on the table, viewers were clearly able to see the facts. No matter whether you find Amanda's shrieks of delight in the end, following the announcement of her exoneration, encouraging or creepy, the film achieved its sole purpose: telling the twisted tale of a chilling murder.