shanayneigh First of all, I, precisely like you, have no idea if Robert Durst is guilty or not.As a big fan of documentaries I am of the view that no documentary is or can be neutral or objective. In fact, some of the best documentaries, in my view, are thesis driven ones with a strong point of view. Andrew Jarecki made such a documentary twelve years ago, Capturing the Friedmans, which is one of the most fascinating documentaries I've ever seen. But the risk with making such a documentary is that you may cross the line and it becomes a hatchet job. My view is that Jarecki crossed that line in The Jinx. It is clear that Jarecki swings for the fences, but this time he comes up short. And I have to say that there is something quite unsettling about the style in which he made this documentary.It features a lot of talking heads. Jarecki manages to come up with exactly one person, not counting Durst's former lawyers, who isn't outright hostile towards Durst. Over and over again they call Durst, who at that point hasn't been charged with, or convicted of, anything in connection with the disappearance of Kathie Durst and the death of Susan Berman, a "murderer". Having watched this series for the second time now, I can't think of an instance where Jarecki asks even one single critical question to these people. Which is problematic since he has long since crossed the line from documentarian into something else completely. In episode 2 Jarecki jokes with Kathie Durst's friends that they in search for answers "have become junior detectives". Well, this is also an apt description of Jarecki's role. It's blatantly obvious that he from the start of the documentary is out to get Durst. Maybe that wasn't the intention when he started filming, but it's certainly clear in the editing of the episodes that Jarecki is building a case against Durst, most evident in the last episode where they prepare the interrogation ("interview" is not the correct word) of Durst.Too bad for Jarecki that his case is quite weak. No "proof" is too small to be included in the show. For instance the ridiculous argument that only someone with medical knowledge would use the word "cadaver". And since Durst's disappeared wife was a medical student where they use cadavers for training purposes, Durst must obviously be the person who wrote the "cadaver letter". QED. Or, you know, someone with a larger vocabulary than a middle school student.And the intended coup de grace, Durst's bathroom "confession" in the last minutes of the series, is a dud. Having worked in this business for quite some time, I for one don't buy for a single second that the filmmakers were unaware of Durst's "confession", discovering it in editing one or two years later as they claim. First of all, they kept the microphone on Durst after the interview was done. Secondly, there is no reason for the camera which is recording the audio to still be running after they wrap up, turn off the lights etc. Given that Durst was seen talking into his microphone being unaware that they were recording earlier in the series, it's quite clear that the filmmakers were keeping their fingers crossed for something like that to happen again. And bingo. Or so they thought. You don't have to be Johnnie Cochran or a John Grisham protagonist to make the argument that he was talking sarcastically, or playing out scenarios in his head of what other people might say about him. Exhibit A: The Jinx, where Durst does so several times.There are plenty of armchair amateur psychologists writing about Durst, not at least on the IMDb boards. He has "dead eyes" like "a shark", which if course is proof of him being a sociopath or psychopath. His blinking is "a tell that he is covering up his lies", a "technique taught to CIA and spies all over the world to beat 'the lie detector' and interrogators" no less. And as we all know, burping is the true mark of a killer. Again, I have no idea of Robert Durst is guilty or not, but unlike the junior PI's on the IMDb boards I have seen people with tics before. One of my best friends has Tourettes, and his blinking tics are very similar to Durst's. And using someone's "dead" or "black" eyes as some sort of proof of guilt, you might as well be using phrenology which is of equal validity.One other thing that is unsettling is the impeccable timing of Durst's arrest which took place on the evening before the final episode aired, prompting the question of whether there has been a conflation between criminal investigation and documentary filmmaking. That has been done before, and very successfully at that. The Thin Blue Line and Serial are two examples on the top of my head. The difference however between those two shows and The Jinx is that the former two aimed at exonerating someone of a crime, or at least casting a shadow of reasonable doubt, while the latter tries to prove that someone is guilty, and if you want to do that you better make sure you have an almost iron-clad case which The Jinx is far from being. With great accusations come great responsibility, to paraphrase a well-known superhero.

Karl Ericsson This is, with little doubt, the most boring piece of idiocy I almost watched entirely. I understand that there must be some significant difference between me and the general public in the USA. For sure, I cannot understand how a poor person in America can vote on anything but the communists, out of spite if for no other reason. John Steinbeck wrote that the poor in America look at themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires and if that is possible then I guess the raving reviews that this film has gotten is possible too. Somebody has to issue a warning, so I'm doing it. If you buy this film, you cannot blame me. Where lies the fascination that some people seem to have for this garbage? Are they surprised that there are killers in a system of competition, in which only the most evil can succeed? A good person cannot see his fellow human beings as opponents and subsequently a good person has no chance to make it in the USA. I guess, most Americans don't know that. What could have been told in half an hour or less, is stretched out to more than 4 hours (or was it even 5?). Every idiot has their say. The only thing that could have saved this film - well,almost - would have been if he was innocent without a doubt and the guilty person would have been somebody you never even heard about before.

Mark Thorby I cant believe i haven't heard of this case before and i follow most true crime events its very intriguing, its one of the best true crime documentaries I've seen in my life really good entertainment, especially the parts that he doesn't know his microphone is still turned on, i'm watching the movie "all good things" at the moment and i saw "the jinx" documentary first. and after watching the documentary i think the movie is very underrated considering what really happened, I've done no research into Robert Durst after the Documentary came out and the conclusion, but both of them are worth a watch if your interested in the true crime mystery genre, My personal views are i really don't know what happened, either this guy is one of the smartest killers or he is the most unluckiest men, even the parts when he talks to himself are interesting because i can relate to such things myself, this documentary and the movie combined are defiantly worth a watch.

peefyn The Jinx is a great show. I am not American, and I had never heard about the case nor the Durst family before this show. Going in knowing nothing led to some of the revelations being really shocking. The fact that the show is so exciting is at least partly due to the case itself being absolutely bonkers on many levels.But what makes it more exciting is the wealth of information, people and footage they got access to. You really felt that you were thrown into the middle of an investigation, and saw the case unraveling in front of you. And Robert Dust is a compelling figure. It's difficult to place him as either an eccentric evil genius, or a lucky loony. Probably he is somewhere in the middle. Some of the stuff he does seems more like a bumbling fool than an educated criminal, while other things seems really well thought out. It keeps you on the edge of your seat. His mannerisms and just his character in general is also perfect for a show like this. Because despite everything: He can be pretty funny.So, as entertainment it was really good. That said: I did not like the reenactments. It felt cheap and out of place, and was not needed for the documentary. There were other parts that should have been left out as well, like when they start annoying a man working security in one of the Durst buildings.But I guess one of the more important questions to ask yourself here is: should journalism go more in this direction? Because this was, have no doubt about it, made to entertain. Here's my initial thoughts: Except the literal victims here, there are no other victims of this show that I can think of. The friends and family of both victims and others involved seems to have gotten their say, or at least had the chance to. The producers did a really good job researching and investigating the case, and the presentation seems truthful enough. The focus on Robert never turns him entirely into a movie character. Througot the series you start to understand him more as a human being. Or at least the producers impression of him. For now I am in the position that journalism is probably going to go more in this direction, but it is a dangerous path, for it can very easily focus too much on the entertainment and to little on the responsibility of a journalist presenting a case.