the audience applauded

Simply Perfect

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

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.

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'.

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.

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.