Miranda's Victim

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.