User Reviews

To some extent, this is a fairly ordinary treatment of a story of injustice, with the usual montages and dramatic courtroom and prison scenes of the subgenre, Canadian style. It is raised above the average by some excellent performances (notably, Ian Tracey as Milgaard and Gabrielle Rose as his mother) and the power of the story itself. Tracey has to carry much of the emotional weight by himself. Those who would call this story "over-romantic" and "over-dramatized" should take note that Tracey evokes considerable sympathy for Milgaard while making no attempt to soften the edges of his personality, either his early less-than-upstanding behavior or his later serious dysfunction in prison.

Tracey fully deserved his Gemini and Leo grand slam. He best conveys Milgaard's decline through abuse and sheer boredom over 23 years via an increasingly dysfunctional interaction with a prison yard wall that culminates in ranting to himself while his mother tries to hug him. Rose's performance as Milgaard's staunchly supportive mother is very strong, but wouldn't work without Tracey's. Tracey manages to show how judging Milgaard's guilt based mainly on whether or not he was a nice kid back in '69 is as appalling now as it was then. That it was, in fact, criminal in this case.

Everyone involved in perpetuating this farce of injustice, from the court system that failed Milgaard and continues to duck investigation right down to the bullies who picked on his sister in school, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. One might, if one were very generous, accept the original conviction as too much reliance on coincidence (though the coerced and otherwise tainted testimony makes this a hard sell). But the best explanation that the authorities in Saskatchewan can come up with for dragging their feet on reexamining Milgaard's case, on releasing him, on clearing his name over a decade after DNA testing became available, on convicting Larry Fisher (the actual rapist killer of Gail Miller) and on holding a public inquiry into the whole mess, is that Milgaard would have got out much sooner if he had just admitted his nonexistent guilt. I'm sure that the women of Saskatchewan feel so much better knowing that a rapist and murderer can get out of prison early if he just says he's sorry, but an innocent man can stay locked up for 23 years for insisting he's innocent. It seems quite clear that had Milgaard died in prison, his name never would have been cleared, that the authorities would have even preferred such a result.

I'm also sure that the film dramatized and condensed events and all the rest, but the facts that are out there are already bad enough. The two detectives, for example, who interrogated Milgaard and failed to get the real killer, should have done some hard time, themselves. The film does a very good job of showing how one man's conviction not only wrecked his life, but also wrecked the lives of his family, the friends forced to testify against him, Gail Miller's life (which was cut short) and the lives of the women whom Larry Fisher continued to attack. Maybe Fisher's victims and their families should sue the justice system. They certainly have cause.

Anyone who thinks that CSI et al's "guilty until proved innocent" approach is an advancement in law enforcement should be force-fed this film. There is a reason why English law (on which both Canadian and American law are based) states "innocent until proved guilty" and "better that a hundred guilty men go free than that an innocent man should be punished". This film shows, graphically, why.

In 1969, nursing assistant Gail Miller was brutally raped and murdered. On that day, a group of teenage hippies happened to be passing through to pick up a friend on their way from Saskatchewan to Alberta. David Milgaard was one of the group. They were taken into custody, and between a lack of witnesses and corrupt policing procedures, Milgaard was accused of first-degree murder.

Milgaard's trial began on January 31 1969, and lasted two weeks. He was convicted on January 31, 1970. Only 17 at the time, Milgaard spent 23 years in jail, refusing to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit. If it were not for his mother Joyce and the integrity of the lawyers she employed, the case would never have made it half as far as it did- David Milgaard would have been plagued with a false conviction for his entire life. The film relays these details accurately- from the police shooting at his escape to the emotional celebration outside the courthouse- all the while making the audience grow to sympathize with Milgaard's case. It is inspiring, enchanting, and an astounding depiction of one of the greatest errors in the Canadian justice system, one that was not fully resolved for thirty years, when DNA evidence exonerated Milgaard. The events occurring in the film may seem dramatized and an overly romantic view of the case, but that is not so. "Milgaard" is true to the young man's life, if it seems overdone, that only shows the terrible ordeal with which Milgaard was faced. The film is one that should be seen not only for an emotionally packed masterpiece, but to understand the history of one of Canada's most famous court cases.

While a bit gruesome for younger audiences, "Milgaard" is an inspirational account of error and restitution by Canada's courts, and the strength that drove David and Joyce Milgaard to find their way out of the darkness.

**More information on David Milgaard is available from the CBC web archives and various other sites. This case will lie in history forever