Miranda's Victim

This movie is not a dramatic detective story with lots of horrifying scenes as the dark gloomy poster suggests. It's not even about Miranda and his rights, completely undeserved honor for him to go down in history like that.

Based on a true story, it dramatizes stoic bravery of a young woman who had to go through the unsympathetic and ritualistic court system where procedural mistakes and skillful lawyers playing chess with people's lives have more impact than actual confessions, on a slight chance of helping others avoid her destiny and being able to sleep at night.

A decent movie on the topic that unfortunately never gets old. Were you really raped or actually asked for it. Are you damaged goods or a traumatized human being. Shouldn't you just keep on living like nothing happened instead of complicating your life. Would they believe you?

This movie is an excellent dramatization of the impact of the Fifth Amendment which, among other things, seeks to protect an accused person from self-incrimination. It is hard to watch at times but covers an important aspect of the USA justice system.

Abigail Breslin is the victim, Trish Weir, starting when she was 18 in 1963 (coincidentally, I turned 18 in 1963) and going through her married, young adult life. She is excellent in what must have been a difficult role.

The criminal here is Ernesto Miranda (thus 'Miranda Rights' or 'Miranda Warning') who was only marginally educated and had been in troubles of various types starting when he was in grade school, his first conviction was when he was in the eight grade in Mesa, Arizona. This movie focuses on his kidnap and apparent rape of the 18 year old girl shortly after she got off the bus, coming home at midnight from her job at the movie house.

Interestingly the actual victim was Lois Ann Jameson but because it was agreed she would be protected went by the pseudo name Trisha Weir. Only later in life did she identified.

My wife and I watched it at home on DVD from our public library. As we both grew up and started college during that time it was nice hearing some old songs from the 1960s.

Historical accuracy: 8.

Acting: 6.

Dialogue: 8.

Camera work: 8.

Editing: 6.

Budget: 7.

Story: 8.

Theme: 9.

Pure entertainment factor: 7.

Pacing: 7.

Suspension of disbelief: 8.

Non-cringe factor: 7.

Lack of flashbacks: 3.

Special effects: NA.

Video quality: 7.

Great little movie. You can see where it's a tad cheap and rushed. But it doesn't have a TV movie feel to it despite in those few instances. The story is great and I didn't know about a lot of these historical details that I assume are largely true as the main facts I do know are presented fairly here. Initially the movie starts out with us not knowing if Miranda did it as the victim didn't quite recall much. And we see how the police trick him into thinking they have a bunch of evidence they don't actually have, making him sign a confession. At the end of the movie we practically know for sure what happened during the criminal act. The Miranda warning doesn't save him despite the Supreme Court creating it for his defense.

The main issue is the constant flashbacks that ruin the pacing much of the movie. At times they add a bit to the movie, mostly they just fully break any tension and setting. Overall it's a very strong movie besides the editing which ruins some parts of it. I would gladly watch more of these type of movies as I love police investigations and trials. The victim did have way too many scenes where she was just crying or doing nothing. Which ruined her character as she ended up looking like a clueless doll. Which surely was not the intention yet that's the result of too many scenes with nothing happening in them for periods of time. The camera could at least have moved with her movements to make it look more dynamic. The police officers were the heroes here delivering top tier acting and very engaging scenes without overacting. The rest felt a tad flat.

"Miranda's Victim" is a true story and is about the landmark case which brought the so-called 'Miranda Rights' to the forefront. I should mention that the case involving Mr. Miranda was a tough one to watch and talk about, as he kidnapped and sexually assaulted a poor lady. I mention this because it's important to know about this before you watch. If you've been a victim yourself, you might want to think twice about seeing the film. You also might want to have a loved one watch it with you.

Now I am not saying the film handles the subject matter poorly. I was actually VERY impressed that they didn't show much of the assault and it was clear to show how terrible doctors can be when they examine patients who have been attacked. I also appreciated the inappropriate way some folks handled this...such as the victim's own mother. It was not glossed over and these scenes might be best to be seen with some Kleenex nearby.

The story begins in 1963. A young woman is kidnapped and assaulted. While her mother wants her to be quiet and not tell the police, her sister insists and Trish talks to a police detective about the incident. The film follows the police work...leading ultimately to the arrest of Ernesto Miranda. What happens next and how they now name the police 'Miranda' warning after him, you'll have to see for yourself.

This film is truly terrific...hard to watch...but terrific. I cried and yelled quite a few times during the movie...a testament to the impact of the movie. It also did something very few movies do which are based on true facts...it stuck to the facts and really told the story well. As a result, it's probably the best made film about sexual assault you can watch...tough watching, of course, because it is made so well. Terrific acting, direction and, well,...everything.

By the way, this was Donald Sutherland's final feature film. While he's not the star, he was terrific as a judge and it's a wonderful career ending movie.

IN A NUTSHELL: One of the courses I currently teach at a university is Politics, so I was especially interested in seeing how this story would be told. Already, it has 25 wins and 8 nominations!

The dramatic movie was directed by Michelle Danner, and written by George Kolber, Richard Lasser, and J. Craig Stiles.

THINGS I LIKED: The terrific cast includes Abigail Breslin, Donald Sutherland, Andy Garcia, Luke Wilson, Emily VanCamp, Enrique Murciano, Mireille Enos, Nolan Gould, Joshua Bowman, Sebastian Quinn, and Ryan Phillippe.

Academy Award-nominated Abigail Breslin did a terrific job in the leading role. We all fell in love with her when she appeared in the 2006 movie Little Miss Sunshine. I first noticed her as the darling little girl in Signs in 2002. I'm so happy for her to land this movie. She successfully portrayed a frightened, young girl and slowly showed subtle degrees of maturity, forgiveness, courage, and even dignity as the years passed after the rape. Well done!

I appreciated the fact that the film was directed by a woman because she was able to sensitively show the various reactions of the crime by the featured women in the story.

There is a clip shown from the movie To Kill a Mockingbird. Great movie.

Young viewers might find it hard to believe that people didn't just easily say the names of male and female genitalia like they do now. I thought the film represented how "good girls" actually behaved back in 1963 and how completely devastating being raped as an 18-year-old virgin it would have been for Trish Weir.

Fun fact: Emily VanCamp and Josh Bowman also starred together in the 2011 film They are now married in real life!

The emotional heft is strong throughout the entire film. Get your tissues ready.

Keep watching during the final rolling credits to see photos of some of the real people involved in the events shown in the movie. We also get to read what happened to them and where they are now. One of the final shots shows that out of 1000 rape cases, only 5 of the rapists are actually convicted. That is so wrong and abhorrent in many ways. The film offers a phone number to call if you or someone you know has been a victim.

Kudos to the team for creating a very accurate 1960s period piece that truly looks and feels spot on.

It was George Kolber, one of the producers, who found Trish Weir and got her permission to tell her side of the story. Wow, she was brave then and is still now.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: Some of the transitions between scenes were choppy.

There is a strange green screen in Act 1.

This is a heavy film to watch because of the subject matter.

Some viewers might be confused by the non-linear storytelling method, as the timeline jumps around quite a bit.

One thing the movie doesn't address is why a married man would kidnap and rape a young girl. Ernest Mirando deserved to rot in jail. It's so frustrating to watch the courtroom trials. What a filthy scumbag Ernest was.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: A lot of talk of rape with some dramatization of the events Two F-bombs Some blood

.