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.

I watched this completely spontaneously yesterday, without knowing what precisely it was about. Expecting nothing special, I can now say that I was very pleasantly surprised. Aside from what seemed to me a very on- the-nose way of building up tension at the beginning that had me rolling my eyes a bit (I expect someone who knows even a bit about the case would react very differently), this is a very solid documentary.As I see it, the most interesting aspects of this story are not the intricacies of the murder case itself- the collection and interpretation of clues and such. It quickly becomes more about how the media reacts to an "exotic" case (or is trying its hardest to make it exotic) like this and how it impacts the workings of a possibly incompetent police- and justice-system. I believe this was the decided intention of the makers of this documentary: They manage to pretty elegantly blend the human angle (the immediate experience of those involved in the case), the 'mystery angle' (uncovering what actually happened) and the bigger picture of how hyperbolic, borderline insane reporting on a case can shift the public opinion and potentially derail investigations in a very real way. The cinematography and editing are also excellently executed - the shots are stylish, but also convey information relevant to what's going on (as opposed to being vacuously flashy, as I've often seen in crime-related documentaries).Regarding the 1-star reviews (this may contain a few "spoilers"): I'm glad I didn't decide to not watch the film because of the many angry negative reviews here on IMDb. A cursory reading of most of them makes apparent that the criticism isn't really focused on the craftsmanship or the entertainment-value of this documentary but rather on a bias the filmmakers may or may not have towards displaying the titular Amanda Knox in a much more positive light than she deserves. If this really were the case, it would constitute a valid criticism, given that this is a documentary. But from what I've read the accusations made in these reviews are far from substantial and most of the people making them seem to have been deeply emotionally caught up in this case for years and obviously made up their mind a long time ago. For example, I've read multiple times that the documentary supposedly withheld "important" information, like the captioning of a myspace photo of Amanda holding a gun with the words "The Nazi Inside", or that the she once uploaded a short story of a woman getting raped, somewhere online. These reviewers apparently believe that this is damming evidence of her being a murderous sociopath. I'm baffled by this reasoning - it implies that every edgy teen on 4chan or reddit is an enormous danger to society.Regardless - even if after watching the documentary you are not convinced of Knox' innocence, the repeated revisions of the verdicts made by the Italian courts plainly show that this case was handled extremely incompetently, which in and of itself is worthy of reflection and discussion. I will concede that the way some people, especially Italian investigators and lawyers, were presented made them look like morons, or at least somewhat misguided - but I'm not sure how much of this can be attributed to the makers of the documentary trying to paint a false picture. I had the impression that what I got was a somewhat exaggerated, but essentially real picture of who these characters were.Anyways, a documentary well worth your time, especially as it brutally demonstrates the irrational malleability of public opinion - and this is true whether you consider Amanda guilty or not after having seen it.Edit: The reviews here are obviously being brigaded by people who dislike this film with a passion. Very detailed and well written positive reviews (not necessarily mine) that gave the movie a score of seven or higher have been overwhelmingly declared "not helpful" in spite of the movie having a pretty high rating here.

American exchange student Amanda Knox is convicted and eventually acquitted for the 2007 death of another student in Italy.Although I did not follow the story at the time, and have not really followed it since then, I still felt this documentary was a bit unnecessary. Despite not reading any books or watching any documentaries, I still knew the general case and the flaws in the evidence and that sort of thing. So this did not add much in that regard, and anyone who did follow the case will learn nothing.One thing I liked about this film, though, and why I still give it a positive rating, is its exploration of the media. One of the main interview subjects is a journalist who covered the story. He is an interesting character. While he is correct in saying this was not a "trial by media" (the case ultimately comes down to the prosecution defense and jury) he does seem to shrug off some of the more disturbing aspects of his role -- the diary leak, for example. And the inability of the media to just let Knox have a normal day once in a while.Generally speaking the film leans pro-Knox, but in fairness I think the evidence leans pro-Knox. Although again I did not follow the case that closely, if the DNA evidence was thrown out, there really is nothing connecting her to the murder. So if we believe in "reasonable doubt", she never should have been indicted and prosecuted in the first place.

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.