Miranda's Victim

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.

I guess Miranda's Victim had its heart in the right place and the acting was first rate for the most part but the movie tried to capture the 60's so hard it ended up coming off more like a 70's after school special.

The cinematography was excellent and some of the soundtrack worked but the story was an exercise in who cares-at least the way this writer told it. Could have been something special but the writer and director missed their opportunity in my opinion.

Maybe they delivered what they were trying to but for me it was overly dramatic way too much of the time and ended up feeling flat and falling flat on its face. Little suspense or drama. Sorry. So disappointed.

It's 1963. Trish Weir (Abigail Breslin) gets raped by Ernesto Miranda. It's a long bumpy road from there to conviction to the Supreme Court and back to trial again.

I've never considered this case despite the omnipresence of this legal precedent. Miranda is not even a person's name anymore. On a basic level, this movie is interesting information. The problem is the case itself. It makes one root against this important ruling. It does settle on Trish and her compelling journey especially after her marriage. It's a bumpy journey of a movie. It's probably a bit long at over two hours although I don't know what could be trimmed. I would definitely change the title. They probably want Miranda's name in the title, but I want Trish in there too.

Although everybody has heard about the Miranda warning, nobody really knows the background story about the circumstances that led to the enactment of this ruling.

Miranda's Victim presents the story from all sides: through the eyes of the attorneys, Miranda, and most importantly, his victim. Trish Weir's persistence in obtaining justice at a time where few women reported rapes is a crusade that still resonates today as women collectively find their voices to share their own sexual abuse stories in the ongoing MeToo movement.

This movie is not just a story. It sends a greater message to all sexual assault victims on how one brave voice can have such a profound effect on the American justice system.

Greetings again from the darkness. "You have the right to remain silent." Whether you say it out loud or just finish it in your head, the vast majority of us know what follows, even if it's (hopefully) just from watching TV and movies. You likely also know that it's part of The Miranda Rights ... a list of rights that anyone being arrested is entitled to. If you are like me, you probably hadn't put any thought into the origin of those rights or the requirement for law enforcement to recite them in a timely manner. Director Michelle Danner (THE RUNNER, 2021) and co-writers George Kolber and J Craig Stiles are here to educate by bringing us the story of Trish Weir and Ernesto Miranda.

The film is based on the true story of Trish, an 18-year-old working at a local movie theater. After one late night bus ride home from work, she was abducted and raped. As Trish, Abigail Breslin proves yet again that she is a terrific actor, and fully grown up since her breakthrough performance in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (2006). What follows is gut-wrenching, and likely a scene that played out all too frequently fifty years ago, and still occurs today. Trish's mom (Mireille Enos, "The Killing") tries to dissuade her from going to the police by warning her that "they never believe the victim", and that she will then be considered "damaged goods." It's painful to watch this play out, despite knowing that mom thinks she is protecting her young daughter. Trish's sister Ann (Emily Van Camp, "Revenge") is very supportive and follows her to the doctor for the initial check-up, to the police station for filing the report, and ultimately to the courtroom.

There is much to consider in this story. How courageous was Trish for standing up and pursuing the case? How about the detectives (played by Enrique Murciano, Brent Sexton) who recognized that even though other victims had chosen not to come forward, Trish could help them stop a really bad guy? And then there is a legal system that was unfair to both Trish and Ernesto Miranda (Sebastian Quinn), as well as the attorney, judges, and jurors involved with the cases. Fittingly, a clip of the 1962 classic TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is shown, emphasizing the wheels of justice turn slowly. We see that the ACLU attorney (Ryan Phillippe) gets involved when he believes Mr. Miranda was coerced into a confession. This is the case that changes everything.

Supporting work comes from Luke Wilson as Trish's attorney, Lawrence Turoff; Andy Garcia as Miranda's first defense attorney, Alvin Moore; Donald Sutherland as a judge in the case; Taryn Manning ("Orange is the New Black") as a key witness; Dan Lauria as the examining doctor; and Kyle MacLachlan as Chief Justice Earl Warren, who is excited for a rare public reading of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in 1966. It should be noted that the film is very well acted, with the notable exception of Ryan Phillippe, who tries oh-so-hard to steal his scenes, failing painfully.

Michelle Danner's work as director here is exceptional, given how many facets to the story must be juggled and given proper due. Even the re-trial of Miranda is handled well, as Trish is put through another round of emotional turmoil, this time involving her spouse. The film ends with a startling statistic: only 5 of every 1000 sexual assaults result in a conviction. Those are today's figures, so we are left to wonder just how much has changed over the past 60 years.

The film is currently playing the Film Festival circuit.