Neil Orange peel I'm not one for hyperbole. I'm not one for 'best eva' nonsense. But after almost half a century on this planet, I developed a taste for documentaries. On a personal level, there is no better crime documentary than Morris's 'The thin blue line', but 'The Jinx' is not a movie, it's a series.I watched this after the massively overrated so called 'whodunit' 'Making a murderer' (he did it, obviously!). I was blown away. I think the last time a documentary series dragged me in like this was with 'The Staircase'. Is this better than that? i would say, 'yes' ,but only just. This will have you on the end of your seat. I watched this with a few friends one night and I've never heard a room go so quiet once it got going. It will utterly absorb you. We planned on watching one episode but ended up watching the whole series in one go until 3.am. With work the next morning no less! Whilst I do not recommend that, I recommend getting hold of a copy and watching it.But make sure you start in the afternoon, because you won't be able to wait for the next part. For me, the master of understatement, I would say that I can't think of a better documentary series than this.

pdiepersloot Murder mysteries as a genre, so it seems, has gained significant momentum over the past few years. Netflix acts as an active supporter of the genre seeing it has recently produced series like The Keepers which proved extremely succesful. The Jinx is yet another mystery crime documentary series which explores multiple murder cases and the people possibly involved in it. This tendency therefore quickly brings to mind a documentary like A Thin Blue Line which, in my opinion, could be seen as the blueprint for these new Netflix series. What the abovementioned documentaries all have in common is its use of reenactments resulting in an overt dramatization of the displayed themes and storylines. Yet whereas normally the use of reenactments in documentaries might seem questionable, it is within these documentaries that I believe it serves as to illustrate more clearly the inconsistencies surrounding the given suspects and stories. So instead of using it as a way to show what (theoretically) has happened according to the filmmakers, it rather serves as a tool to communicate the flaws surrounding the existing theories about the given events. Its used as a means to pose questions, not answers. It is for this reason that, in my opinion, the documentaries' credibility is by no means undermined. Moreover, further research concerning any of these documentaries does not result in contradictory findings as is the case with another murder mystery documentary series produced by Netflix; Making a Murderer. Surrounded by inconsistencies, irregularities and questionable evidence this documentary proofed to have taken a few liberties with their findings. The Jinx, as noted, does however build a surprisingly strong case against Robert Durst without its evidence being disputed by other sources. And its not like these other sources don't get the oppurtunity to present the case in favor of Robert Durst. Even Durst himself has the oppurtunity to explain what has happened and how he was (or wans't) involved. However during the six-episode series a pattern slowly emerges which undeniably lead to one single conclusion. The documentary surely offers an interesting portrayal of a man caught up in allegations and trials. Furthermore it offers psychological insight into a man who has been subject of many investigations in the past 30 years. And last but not least I find the images produced to be of absolute importance for the world to see. That being said I must conclude that its the story which makes it a great documentary. Not by way of its storytelling for it mostly shows talking-heads, offers little archive material of evidence, and fails to capture the gruesomeness to some extent. Nonetheless the story itself intriques and just screams to be told. Hopefully it is not too late.

R Bruce Hudson This is a documentary which follows Andrew Jarecki, as he pulls together the story of Robert Durst, who is suspected of killing his wife along with two others.Robert Durst is part of the Durst family, a prominent property investment force in New York. Andrew Jarecki interviews Robert Durst extensively, along with other key players. He and his team are party to the uncovering of new evidence for these old crimes.Amazingly, the tension is built and sustained then built again and again - I am sure whether to congratulate Andrew Jarecki as incredibly lucky for the revelations he gets to reveal, or his mastery as a film maker.I believe that this series is a rare combination of both.Highly recommended.

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.