Nuremberg (2000) User Reviews

Well made, historically accurate

[matlock-6 · 7/10 · 1 May 2002]

The primary complaint about this will probably be "it's too long". The actual Nuremburg trils went on for much longer than three hours, however, so imagine how much had to be left out!

Brian Cox is brilliant as Hermann Goering, portraying him as the vain and egotistical, yet clever and often easily likable person he could be, despite his history as one of the most horrible people of all time. Nuremburg goes beyond showing him as the faceless Nazi monster; as a proud soldier and pilot (he was head of the Luftwaffe during WW2, and in WW1, had been a decorated pilot himself), and a man capable of humor and kindness. Particularly powerful scenes include one towards the beginning when he entertains a group of GI's by playing the accordion and singing, and another towards the end, when his wife asks him if she can take home some of the food that had been provided for what would probably be his last meal, and he very "normally" says, "I don't see why not," and looks for someone to ask. The last scene must be viewed to fully understand what I mean.

The movie seems to have been made with historical correctness in mind. Small bits of fact that never would have been included in a big budget hollywood picture make it here, like the scene in which the defendants give their pleas, and Goering attempts to make a statement but is cut off by the judge. Also historically correct is the way in which Goering initially made the prosecutors, representing the allied forces, look like idiots, while he endeared himself to everyone in the room with his witty remarks.

The friendship between Goering and the American soldier "Tex" is also completely true, and the movie insinuates one of the two most popular explanations for how Goering got the cyanide ampule into his cell, despite the fact that it and he were searched regularly. Nuremburg seems to say that Goering asked his friend to retrieve a bag of personal items for him to go through and give away. The other belief is that the American knowingly brought the ampule to Goering, rather than Goering tricking him. The reality will probably never be completely known.

For history buffs, this is a must see. Probably for everyone else too...

Overall, Great Mini-Series, However, Not enough air-time for the defendants

[sports2119 · 7/10 · 23 August 2005]

I have read a few books on the Nuremberg trials, as well as books on The Third Reich in general. Though the portrayals of the defendants were fairly accurate, they were not given the appropriate amount of air-time.I mean, without the defendants, there wouldn't have been a trial. Here's the top 10 things that should have been added (and especially subtracted from the movie.)

10) Should have emphasized the alliances between the defendants. Speer wasn't the only one to stand up to Goering. Von Schirach, Funk, and Fritzsche were all against Goering.

9) Give Defendent #2 Rudolf Hess more that four words.

8) Clarifiy why Hess goes crazy at the end.

7) Make sure the audience knows that Speer's penitence could be him saving his hide.

6) Emphasize that Franks conversion was due to him finding God.

5) Talk about the defendants personal lives, try to explain why they would commit these atrocities.

4) Tell what happened to the defendants who were acquitted or had their sentences carried out at Spandau.

3) They should of had the story include Von Schirach and Von Neurath, the youngest and the oldest defendants, so they would have more of a age perspective to the story.

2)All of the Defendants positions should have been named at least once.

1) The Jackson/Secretary affair probably took at'least a half an hour out of the mini-series, Which could have been dedicated to, I don't know, making sure the audience at least knows the defendant's's names. Besides, I don't now one person who saw that movie who actually liked the couple.

It's compelling, but maybe not the way it was intended.

[Clive-Silas · 8/10 · 19 April 2004]

Hidden inside this purported battle between surviving top Nazi Hermann Goering and American prosecutor Judge Robert Jackson is, I think, the adaptation the writer probably wanted to do - the story of psychologist G. M. Gilbert and his backstage verbal tusslings with men who either refused to acknowledge any guilt (Goering, Streicher) or conversely were overflowing with it (Frank, Speer).

When you see Alec Baldwin appear a second time in the credits, as Executive Producer, you feel that Nuremberg was probably conceived as a vanity project for him. Fortunately it is quite easy to let the early scenes of the Court's setup just wash over you, and of course Jill Hennessey is always easy on the eyes. Much of the first half of the first episode is more or less soap opera. Jackson has to persuade Judge Biddle to go to Nuremberg, then to relinquish the Presidency of the court to the British. The bantering relationship with his secretary (Hennessey) serves as a prelude to their becoming lovers during their time in Germany.

At this point Hermann Goering appears (the great Brian Cox on top form), totally dominating the trial, totally dominating this mini-series, and your attention is grasped and held. Cox almost wipes Baldwin off the screen. Unfortunately it's very hard not to gain a great deal of sympathy for Goering, particularly when he is with his family, or in the heart-to-heart chats with his G. I. prison guard, Tex. We see Goering as he undoubtedly saw himself, but in reality he wasn't like that at all. The Nuremberg trial and the general travails of imprisonment were an excellent opportunity for him to smarten himself up: prior to his arrest he had become a dissolute and overweight drug addict. Unfortunately no sign of this weakness of character was carried over into the script, leaving an impression of Goering as a noble, principled man - irrespective of whether you agreed with his principles.

Also very watchable was Matt Craven in the role of Gilbert the aforementioned psychologist, and Christopher Plummer as British prosecutor David Maxwell-Fyfe (although the real Maxwell-Fyfe was the younger prosecutor, not an elder mentor as depicted here). Particularly gratifying is the scene in which Maxwell-Fyfe tells Jackson that "your documentary approach is legally impeccable - but as drama it's absolutely stultifying" - which might stand as an apt description of Baldwin's part in this series.

A last little curiosity, and not to make any personal remarks about Herbert Knaup, but I did find it strange that they cast Knaup, a slightly odd-looking actor, to play Albert Speer, by fairly common consent the handsomest and most photogenic of all the Nazi leaders, particularly as Speer was portrayed here in a sympathetic light. Other than Knaup, many of the actors were very close in looks to their real-life counterparts, most notably Roc LaFortune as Rudolf Hess, almost a living double.

Brian Cox A Winner

[Signet · 11 November 2002]

Brian Cox picks this mini-series up by the scruff of the neck and runs off with it. It is an amazing testimonial to his talent and his craft that he suceeds in making Field Marshall Hermann Goerring the most appealing and charming character in this rehash of the Nuremburg trials. His "seduction" of the young American non-com is not only plausible but gratifying. It is amazing that this performance has one cheering on the second in command of the Third Reich as he cheats the hangman's noose.

Dramatization of a True Event

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 29 September 2007]

In 1945, after the end of the World War II with the defeat of a ruined Germany, the Allies decide to give a fair trial to twenty-one Nazi leaders POW as an example of intolerance of the governments against hideous atrocities in war. The defendants are accused crimes of war and against humanity, and the American Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson (Alec Baldwyn) is assigned to organize an international tribunal at Nuremberg with representatives from France, Russia and England. The prisoners under the leadership of Hitler's second-in-command Marshall Hermann Goering (Brian Cox) dispute the control in a juridical battle in the courtroom.

"Nuremberg" is an irregular movie about the trial of criminals of war in Nuremberg. The movie has great moments, with footages from the concentration camps; the strong performance of Brian Cox; the dialog about racism and anti-Semitism between Goering and Capt. Gustav Gilbert; and the reconstitution of the destroyed German city. However, in many moments the story recalls a soap-opera, changing the focus of the trial to melodramatic and shallow situations. Further, Alec Baldwyn has a weak performance in the role of a powerful authority. Last but not the least, the movie is very cold, and with the exception of the footages of the concentration camps, it brings no emotion to the viewer. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Julgamento em Nuremberg" ("Trial in Nuremberg")

Outstanding drama that serves as a chilling reminder

[FlickJunkie-2 · 9/10 · 28 January 2001]

`Nuremburg' is a chilling and disturbing look at the Nuremberg trial of Nazi war criminals after WWII. The story is historically accurate and captures the political and psychological climate of the times. It also serves as a distressing reminder to a young generation that has not experienced war in its lifetime of the horrors of which humanity is capable.

The film examines a number of fascinating angles of the trial. Instead of just focusing on the trial itself (of which there is plenty), it also offers a look at the political rivalry and infighting of the victorious nations, and a number of character studies of the prisoners. The most prominently portrayed of these is Hermann Göring (Brain Cox), Reich Marshall of the Third Reich and a member of Hitler's inner circle. Göring is portrayed as a cunning and charismatic adversary, who almost succeeds at making a sham of the entire trial.

The haunting question that must pervade anyone's mind that ponders the atrocities that occurred in WWII Germany is verbalised in the film by Elsie Douglas (Jill Hennessey). She says, `How could civilised human beings ever do that to other civilised human beings?', to which Justice Jackson (Alec Baldwin) replies, "Maybe civilization is overrated." This film provides some insight into the motivation of the German leaders, examining the warped perspective of the perpetrators who attempt to rationalise the horrors they committed to themselves and to the court. They point to the German sense of duty and obedience that is ingrained into their culture. After all, they were only following orders. There is also the undercurrent of Hitler's ruthlessness in using the SS to eliminate all opposition. In a particularly lucid moment, Göring says that if you look up and down the cellblock all you see is `yes men' because all the `no men' are six feet underground. Göring also points out the hypocrisy of the criticism of German hatred of the Jews by a U.S. society that interred millions of Japanese citizens, and tolerates segregation and hate-crimes against blacks.

Certainly, this is no justification for the systematic annihilation of 10 million of their own citizens, and as the film progresses a number of the prisoners begin to express deep remorse for their actions. Still, it shows that these weren't a group of sociopathic monsters in the conventional sense. They were otherwise normal men who had accomplished the inconceivable by dehumanising their victims to the point where the horrors they committed every day were no more disturbing to them than hunting deer to trim the herd. This is the most frightening thought of all, because it portends the possibility that such unthinkable acts could happen again. As long as we are able to believe that these men were a gaggle of homicidal maniacs, a freak societal aberration, we can reassure ourselves that this couldn't ever recur. However, when it dawns on us that normal people are able to rationalize such behaviour, we realise that under the right circumstances the potential for such inhumanity always exists. Complacency is an inadvertent ally of oppression, and this film should shock even the most casual viewer out of it. In this regard, it is instructive and enlightening.

The direction by Yves Simoneau is excellent and rises well above his mostly TV credits. The mood of the period is realistically rendered with a great deal of period accuracy. The costumes and period props are excellent with an eye for detail. He does an outstanding job creating background reaction shots, especially among the prisoners, that show their sarcastic disdain for their captors and display their smug superiority. He brings great power to numerous scenes using various camera angles. The holocaust footage used is some of the most disconcerting and inclusive I have ever seen. If there is any criticism to be leveled against the crafting of this film, it is that it delved too deeply into minutia, especially the sexual undercurrents between Jackson and Elsie Douglas. However, given the fact that it was produced as a TNT miniseries, the director was forced to fluff it up for the additional runtime.

The acting is also outstanding. Alec Baldwin gives a solid performance as Robert Jackson, a man obsessed with justice. Baldwin has never been known for his passion, but he elevates his game in certain parts of this film. Jill Hennessey is also excellent as Elsie, rendering her as a tough and smart woman who is a guiding force in the entire proceeding. However, by far the best performance is delivered by Brain Cox as Göring. His is a brilliant and complex performance that brings the reprehensible and magnetic Nazi leader to life in a way that is both attractive and loathsome. Colm Feore also gives a spine tingling performance as Rudolf Höss, the Commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp, who cavalierly discusses the efficiency techniques of eliminating prisoners, with the cold precision of an industrial engineer.

This terrific drama rises far above its TV roots. I rated it a 9/10. It is important viewing which reminds us that we cannot become complacent about tyranny, and we must be ever vigilant to guard against its recurrence.

A detailed and graphic account of the known trials with an awesome acting by Brian Cox as Hermann Goering

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 16 September 2016]

Magnificent film based on actual events with top-notch performances throughout proceeded by a decent star cast and specially by Baldwin , Cox , Plummer , Sydow , Heyerdahl and Len Cariou as supreme judge who presides over the trials , among others . A stimulating portrayal of the Nuremberg trials in which members of the German authorities were brought to response their crimes in the immediate post-war period .

Supreme court Justice , judge Robert H Jackson (Alec Baldwin) is asked to head up the prosecution and he decides to try a representative sample of third Reich leaders , including Hitler's 2º man Hermann Goering (Brian Cox) . The movie initiates with scenes of Núremberg , Germany , 1948 , the destruction of the war is clear everywhere , there Robert is driven through the ruined buildings . The court is formed by three judges to preside the trial against the Nazi chiefs for their complicity in Third Reich . As Robert Jackson in charge of Allied prosecution Nazi war who must resist political pressures and speeches against him , being helped by his assistant Elsie Douglas (Jill Hennessy) . In its opening declaration , the prosecution calls these defendants to account not for violation of due process or other constitutional violations but for killings , tortures , and cruelties committed during WWII . Considers to what extent an individual may be held accountable for actions committed of a superior officer . The accuser statements that the accused cannot claim ignorance that they should have known better for their high position and knowledge . And defenders argue the disobedience to the Fuehrer would have been choice between patriotism and treason for the justices with the subsequent firing squad . Finally the defending councillors explain that not only are the high staff on trial , so are the German people . They claim that the extremists are responsible , not the defendants . They say that very few Germans knew what was going on . Defense lawyers give us the uneasy feeling that the German people never really came to terms with their innocence or guilty . They claimed that the defendants stayed in their positions to keep things from getting worse . One of the more dramatic portions of the film centers around Prosecutor Robert Jackson submitted documents by which the judges and prosecutors had sent thousands to their deaths . A film was shown , a short-documentary is based on real events by means of photographs and stock-footage . As appears work camps are transformed into extermination centers to implement the policy of genocide thought at the Wannsee Conference . At the concentration camps was some minor industrial activity linked to the war effort but the main work was the execution of inmates . Millions of prisoners died in the concentration camps through mistreatment , disease, starvation, and overwork, or were executed as unfit for labor. More than six million Jews died in them, usually in gas chambers, although many were killed in mass shootings and by other means . As the documentary showed a gas chamber at Dachau , but it is a mistake because of it was never used, prisoners died from mistreatment or from execution by means other than gas . The archival footage shows tattooed skin , but Buchenwald prisoners with unusual tattoos were killed , then their skin was preserved for the tattoo collection of convicted war criminal Ilse Koch .

This is a graphic and thought-provoking account of the Nuremberg trials in which a group of high-level hierarchy are on trial , being judged in the immediate post-war period ; and subsequently brought to book by Joseph E. Persico , as this picture is based on his novel titled ¨Núremberg : Infamy on trial¨ . This consuming as well as provoking retelling contains some interesting trial scenes that generally work but there's also the needless byplay of a love story between prosecutor attorney Robert/Baldwin and his secretary/Hennessy . Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson is perfectly played by Alec Baldwin , he gives a very good acting for his impassioned portrayal of the accusation against the nasty Nazis . And also superb : Herbert Knaup as Albert Speer , Christopher Heyerdahl as Ernst Kaltenbrunner , Colm Feore as Rudolf Höß , Fournier as Reichsminister Alfred Rosenberg , Cloutier as admiral Karl Dönitz , Frank Moore as Hans Frank , René Gagnon as Reichsminister Arthur Seyß-Inquart , Benoît Girard as Joachim Von Ribbentrop , Dennis St John as Franz Von Papen , LaFortune as Rudolf Hess , Sam Stone as Julius Streicher and , of course , the always chilling Brian Cox . This deeply moving and powerful film was well -but not overly compelling- directed by Yves Simoneau . Rating : Good , better than average .

Well done film of a difficult theme

[anana11 · 8/10 · 30 April 2003]

My first impression of this film was that it was excellently done. It provoked my curiosity and I am glad to say the film held up under my further investigation of the trials.

The accurate representation of the grayness of a subject most would consider black and white was particularly courageous. It would be easy to paint the Nazis as monsters without souls, but so often terrible things are done by perfectly ordinary people. In fact that is what is so terrible about people's actions in WWII. Malevolence would certainly be easier to accept than what this film shows was at the source of the Nazi behavior -- indifference and lack of empathy. Who hasn't felt indifference toward someone they met in everyday life, the cashier who was too slow, the person in the car ahead, the telemarketer?

The acting was excellent, particularly Brian Cox, who showed us how well charm can mask evil. I did not think Goering was white-washed. This was shown most clearly in his pathetic attempt to shrug off the concentration camp film. Even his manipulative skill couldn't ease that shock, and his American friend was silent. If Alex Baldwin pumped up his drama a little, well, take a look at transcripts of the trial, which are drier than the Sahara. The use of documents was extensive during the trial and how often does the layperson want to hear that? The use of the concentration camp film was a cold dash of water in the face of such dryness. Some other comments question the inclusion of the relationship between Jackson and his secretary. I didn't see it as a "love story", but more as an "adultery story" used to show on a more personal level that despite his side's claim to superior "morals" Jackson was also weak. I think the Soviet involvement and the Polish massacre was left out because it would have been too long to include in all its convolutions. It is an interesting part of the story, however, so I recommend researching it.

I was glad to see on the comments that those who know more than I pointed out its accuracy. Too rarely does Hollywood actually attempt that.

Filling In The Blanks.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 27 February 2016]

Well done, as television movies go. There seems to have been a substantial budget and an awful lot of research behind it. There are times when points and characters are overstated, but it's an improvement over "Judgment at Nuremberg." This film puts the Nazi leaders on trial and finds most of them guilty of crimes against humanity, while others are sentenced to prison. "Judgment at Nuremberg" put the entire nation of Germany on trial, handed the thankless task of defending Germany's role in World War II to Maximilion Schell, and found every German who ever breathed to be guilty of every sin that's ever been committed in the history of humankind. The scriptwriter, Abby Mann, accepted his Academy Award "in the name of all intellectuals everywhere." This modest production fills in many of the blanks that are missing from the public's understanding of the Nuremberg trials. Where, for instance, did the prisoners and staff of the trials find housing in Nuremberg, an ancient city that had been flattened by Allied bombing and in which there were still hundreds of decomposing bodies beneath the rubble? And did all the four major powers -- the US, Britain, France and Russia agree on the format and the procedures? Answer: No, the Russians and the French, who had suffered most under Nazissm, wanted summary executions of all the bigwigs. The subject is dead serious but the program has its quietly amusing moments -- the brash, ugly Russian representative trying to persuade the horrified French representative that he should lace his fine wine with a good belt of vodka. It has the limitations of most commercial productions. The Russian guy really IS ugly, and almost all the Germans are played by men with names like O'Keefe. There are many choker closeups, a technique that befits the small screen.

The Nazi leaders of course are villains of the worst sort but they're shown as humans too. After the surrender, an ebullient Goering, Brian Cox, unexpectedly drives up to an American Air Force base with his wife and child, dismounts from his chauffeur-driven car, and formally hands over his sword to an astounded General Spaatz -- "one airman to another." After being feted publicly, the victors soon round him up and place him in a cell, as had been done with the other prisoners. An American lieutenant, Tex Wheeler, is posted as Goering's personal guard. Scott Gibson gives a convincing performance. Wheelis will play a larger role in Goering's fate later.

Alex Baldwin is Robert H. Jackson, who more or less runs the show. His assistant Jill Hennessy is a fox and the rest of the cast is quite good. There are too many airy conversations about moral superiority and the viewer is urged to want Baldwin to treat Georing on the stand as the despicable, conniving swine he is. Should he? How does the word "disinterested" differ from "uninterested"? The most chilling testimony comes from the Commandant of Auschwitz, who describes the camp's activities precisely and dispassionately -- showing neither indignation or remorse.

Unfortunately, the prosecution insists on presenting not just documentary evidence but witnesses too, in order to deliberately heighten the drama behind the trial. It's pretty sickening, naturally, and to many adults it's repetitive. We know about the medical experiments in which Jews were kept in freezing water until they died. And so we sit through the familiar revolting images of the charred skeleton in the oven, the walking cadavers, the old man praying as he lies on a stretcher, the waxlike naked bodies piled on one another in mounds, the bulldozer shoveling them into the empty pit. I doubt that anyone needs to be REMINDED of what happened. But maybe it's just as well that we go through it all again because I'm not sure how much of this material has faded from our collective memory. One in six English youngsters thought Auschwitz was a World War II theme park, and one in six thought Hitler was a football coach.

And, at that, there are some insights into what has always been a blank at least in my mind. Goering was head of the Luftwaffe. So? What did he have to do with the treatment of the Jews and other devalued minorities? Simple. The experiments that froze subjects to death in ice water were undertaken at his request in order to discover how Luftwaffe crew might best survive if shot down in northern waters. Except for a few, the defendants all seem like unregenerate Nazis. Well, except for Rudolf Hess too, because he was nuts. It may seem like a mistake to have Julius Streicher portrayed as a rabid anti-Semite, pounding the table, ranting against Jews, his features in a cataleptic sneer. But that was the kind of guy he really was. He wasn't a military man but his railing against the Jews amounted to paranoia. He combed the pages of the Talmud and the Old Testament in search of passages that painted Judaism as harsh or cruel, rather like some of us are now doing with the Koran. It's easy.

Some of the prisoners, like Albert Speer, the architect who became Hitler's Armaments Minister, admit their guilt. Others rely on the rationale that they were only following orders. This excuse is always dismissed by civilized people but mistakenly in my opinion.

Not in this case, perhaps, but for "only following orders" substitute "doing what I was expected to do," and we're all guilty, even if the "orders" are sometimes unspoken, in which case they're known as "command pressure" or "peer pressure" or "keeping up with the Joneses." One doubtful ex-Nazi, Hans Frank, puts it this way: "I wanted to keep my job." Suppose, instead of "job", we substitute "public opinion" or "the respect of my community"? From a sociological point of view, the intricacies are myriad.

Excellent representation of the trials, shame about the subplot

[aphrodite_007 · 8/10 · 16 July 2010]

I'm a graduate student doing my thesis on the Nuremberg Trials and so for the past few months I've been immersed in the transcripts, diaries and all the different interpretations of the Trials.

I think that the documentary is actually a very good representation of what happened. The most striking aspect of it was the visual side of things. The locations were perfect, with the reconstruction of a bombed-out Nuremberg as well as the courtroom being absolutely perfect. As well as this, the actors playing the defendants looked remarkably similar to their real life characters and had clearly studied their mannerisms and facial tics. Streicher's excessive chewing, Jodl's upright posture and Hess' craziness were all really well represented- attention to detail was clearly a priority in the casting.

I am prepared to put aside minor artistic licenses they took with the plot- not giving the minor characters many lines (although I think they did well to introduce them all at one point). I think they did well to include most of the 'highlights' of the trial (the trial itself was mostly a dull affair, partly due to Jackson's insistence on using documentary evidence, as was touched upon in the film), whilst at the same time staying very faithful to what happened in the courtroom. The differing tales of how they all ended up in the dock (Frank being roughed up by the Soviets, Goering and Speer coming from relative opulence in the American Zone) are well represented, as are some of the challenges concerned with the trial. For me, what carries this performance is both the brilliant cinematography and attention to detail, as well as the performance of Brian Cox and Hermann Goring. He conveyed his personality, from his playful humour to his shocking lack of regret brilliantly and really mastered his character in a way which is very rare to see. Honorable mentions also to Sam Stone (as Streicher), Roc LaFortune (as Hess), Colm Feore (as Rudolf Hoss, whose testimony was brilliantly chilling) and also to Christopher Plummer, who really captured the dry wit and legal mastery of Maxwell-Fyfe.

However despite it being mostly excellent, there are a few problems I had with the film: 1) The romantic sup-plot between Jackson and his secretary Elsie Douglas was ridiculous. Not only was it patently unture, it added nothing to the plot. There are so many more interesting avenues that could have been explored within the US prosecution case (eg the fact that many of them were not on speaking terms due to disagreements about the merits of documentary vs witness evidence).

2) The film totally overplayed and built up Robert Jackson. In reality, his cross-examination of Goering was seen to have been a total flop. Although he did pick it up by the end, it didn't redeem what was a really poor performance; probably because Jackson was actually a Supreme Court judge and had little experience of it. It was felt to David Maxwell-Fyfe to rescue the prosecution case with one of the best cross-examinations in history, something that wasn't really mentioned in the film. Jackson was well aware he'd made a mess of it and was in an awful mood for the rest of the Trials, frequently quarrelling with the Tribunal. His opening and closing statements were very good though. On a physical level, Jackson was a short, bespetacled man, not an Alec Baldwin type at all!!

3)The film also made the Soviets look like idiots, which really wasn't the case in reality. While the Soviet judge took occasional orders from Moscow (such as the dissenting judgement), during the trial and the London Conference he was actually pretty fair and reasonable. The Soviet prosecutors were also competent and did a good job.

And there are some things left out which I think were worthy of inclusion:

1) The case of Karl Doenitz. This was a very interesting case, in which it was established that Doenitz behaved no differently to the American or British admiralties, however still broke the law. This was a very interesting case which raised all kinds of moral issues about 'victor's justice' and would have been interesting to bring up.

2) There were actually some fairly humorous elements in what was a fairly slow-moving trial which could have been good to include instead of the romantic strand. An example was the arrival of a Russian government member, who at a meeting with the judges proposed a toast to the 'speedy death of all the defendants'. The judges toasted without hearing the translation and were pretty annoyed afterwards! A fairly cruel joke that could have been quite funny if put on the screen. Also, there was the comic scene of Hess sitting through a hearing on whether he was fit to stand trial or not (after he'd been claiming to have amnesia for weeks). Just as the judge was about to deliver the verdict (and probably call him insane), Hess rose and declared himself sane and says he was putting it on all the time. The court collapsed in laughter with no-one sure what to say. I feel this could have been included, whilst still leaving ambiguity about whether he was putting it on or not.

3) I was surprised more wasn't made of the process of actually coming to a judgement. There was some very interesting compromises and trade offs made behind the scenes which could have been worth inclusion. It would certainly have explained the inconsistencies such as Sauckel being sentenced to death, whereas Speer had his life spared. Also, the fact that the Soviet judge dissented from a few of the judgements could have been highlighted.

On the whole it was excellent and the most accurate portrayal of Nuremberg I've ever seen, but I can't help thinking with a few tweaks it could have been a true classic.

Good but unnecessary love-story and terrible performance by Alec Baldwin

[yoshware · 6/10 · 5 May 2006]

The topic was targeted quite well. This movie has very good aspects in it. For example the acting of the accused Germans (like Göring). It is historically accurate and shows everything there is to show about this very delicate topic. Sadly there is shown too much. That love story between Justice Jackson (Alec Baldwin) and Elsie Douglas (Jill Hennessy). In my opinion this is not the movie to be equipped with such a (not even well done) love story. I suppose some moviegoers want to see love in every movie. But for me this ruined it. Furthermore Alec Baldwins acting was not adequate. He showed emotions, where there are no emotions to be shown and it looked like he wanted to show off his 'talent' in this movie at every occasion possible. Which again was a big mistake.

My rating for this movie would have been 9/10 if those two things would have been regarded but with the above complaints, it will only receive a rating suitable for below-average movies.

Compelling stuff

[rps-2 · 8/10 · 13 September 2000]

This is a strange subject for a modern TV series designed to entice an audience to whom World War II is as distant as the Pelopenesian Wars. Yet this is a tough, well produced, historically accurate and thoroughly compelling film. Brian Cox steals the show with a masterful recreation of Hermann Goering as a beguiling rogue. And the production techniques excel, for example the sound track as silent film of the concentration camps is shown to the trial. It puts the horror in context without exploiting it or sensationalizing it. A brilliant piece of historical film making.

Historically accurate but dull

[bill_farrell · 6/10 · 20 July 2000]

For anyone unfamiliar with the immediate aftermath of WWII and the development of war crime legal theory, this film is a good primer. The images of Nuremberg reduced to rubble ring true. The courtroom inclusion of actual concentration camp film footage provides a stark contrast to the sanitized depiction seen in such films as "Sophie's Choice," Schindler's List," and "Life is Beautiful." The sensibilities of the Russian allies are respectfully addressed. The portrayal of an American sergeant as the vehicle for Hermann Goering's ultimate escape is consistent with the historical record. Actual events are recounted skillfully throughout.

Still, the film is fairly dull. Despite perfunctory references, the question of how civilized people (leaders, soldiers, and citizens) could resort to such inhumanity is not explored. A group of German officers in the 1940's who merely did as they were told does not make for a very satisfying, gripping, nor generalizable story. That story ends neatly at the end of the noose. The bigger issues are left unexplored, aside from such banalities as "Evil is the lack of empathy."

"Judgment at Nuremberg" (1961) examines these more thorny human issues with far more success. Collective guilt, individual responsibility, obedience, evil, omission, and redemption converge in this taut and heartbreaking opus.

After getting the basics from Alec Baldwin's production, view this earlier classic.

Not that good

[user-490-135372 · 5/10 · 18 July 2015]

Quite a few reviewers seem to be taken by the historicity of this movie. It's true that many of the details are correct - but it is also true that many others are wildly incorrect. The most egregious one is the romantic liaison between Justice Jackson and his assistant. I guess that the producers introduced the romantic element for the sake of a wider appeal, but the fact is that, in light of the actual events, this looks ridiculous. Which is a shame, for the movie would have been far more valuable without that silliness. It's mostly because of this that I don't think that it deserves more than 5 points. The bright sides are Brian Cox's and Michael Ironside's performances, and also, but to a lesser extent, Christopher Plummer's and Matt Craven's. Alec Baldwin delivers the same kind of underwhelming performance that he usually does, and Jill Hennessy does whatever she can with her inane and fictitious part.

In summary, it could have been a good movie, but it is just a decent one.

Electrifying depiction of the world-famous trials

[delh1 · 17 July 2000]

I was only a teenager when the Nuremberg trials began, and I (as most other people throughout the world) had very little true knowledge of the horror stories of the victims of Nazi atrocities. When the truth burst upon the world, many people could not believe what they saw. (Some neo-nazi fools still deny everything.)

This is not an easy film to watch, especially with actual films of the frightful deathcamps, but one is drawn into the story because it was such a momentous event - that the major Allies of WWII united to have fair and open trials not just of single criminals, but of an evil governmental system.

Alec Baldwin has done a magnificent job in his role as Robert Jackson, who was the Chief Prosecutor. I wish I could thank him, as co-producer of this fine mini-series, for such a vivid rendering of those years.

Yes, there are still horrors being perpetrated on innocent victims in many parts of the world today, but the world IS watching, and in many cases, is resisting these evil governments.

I suggest that it is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE that young people today watch this film. Too many young (and many older) people think of WWII as only a rather heroic glorious time; I want them to know what some human beings were doing to other innocent victims. Believe me it is NOT boring. Yes, there were many, many heroes. I know. I married a young man who had fought with the Greek resistance movement and suffered greatly, but his spirit, as that of many others, could not be conquered. We must not forget!

Compelling subject, powerful drama.

[=G= · 7/10 · 28 January 2001]

The Nuremberg trials were of such monumental historical importance and so complex as to make their dramatization in a two hour film a daunting task. Nonetheless, the film makers did a good job of abbreviating the history of the trials, touching on major benchmarks, examining many of the moral questions, regurgitating the horrors of the holocaust, and featuring key characters. While not a great film, "Nuremberg" is a worthy effort, a good history lesson for young people, and an interesting watch for all. Kudos to Cox for a superb portrayal of Hermann Göring.

A very well made TNT original

[FrankBooth_DeLarge · 8/10 · 4 February 2005]

Let's face it, TNT doesn't usually do that great of a job with their original movies. If you think about it, there aren't too many good made for TV movies. Nuremberg is a good made for TV original. The cast is really good, and the cast members look very much like the people they are portraying. I saw a picture that was taken during the Nuremberg trials that looked as though it could have been a shot from the movie. That's how good of a job they did with this movie.

Like any other made for TV movies, there are some weak moments, but this movie has plenty of strong moments that make up for the weak ones. One of the scenes that will evoke some emotion in you is a scene where an old film is shown, showing footage taken from the death camps.

The length of this movie does get kind of long, but it isn't boring or anything like that. It just requires a comfortable seat. Try to see this on TNT whenever you get a chance, it's worth it.

An interesting miniseries which should have been refined a little

[elia-ans · 7/10 · 30 June 2010]

I watched "Nuremberg" on Italian TV, where it passed as a one-evening movie instead than a miniseries, so it was cut in order to fit into the timetable. Despite this, it still proved to be good and with a valid cast. It's not easy to bring the enormity of Nuremberg Process into a movie or a series, yet here we have a good example of an history-related production.

The scenes are built with attention to details, the narration doesn't become pedant and the screenplay avoid most of the clichés about WW2. Alec Baldwin gives a good work in portraying Robert Jackson in a war fought mainly against Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, wonderfully portrayed by Brian Cox. His charismatic, manipulatory character is the best developed of the series and easily casts a shadow over the other defendants, whose similarity to the real defendants is sometimes astonishing.

There are, however, some flaws that need to be pointed out. First of all, Rudolf Hess's characters scarcely has a line to speak, and the same happens to Alfred Rosenberg. Probably it was due to the fact the two actors who portrayed them (LaFortune and Fournier) are French and their accent wouldn't have been fit to the characters, but their impact is still scarce. It would have been interesting to watch scenes about Hess's pretended mental illness or Rosenberg's intellectual arrogance and insignificance finally unmasked. Other defendants are better represented, however: the toffee-nosed Ribbentrop, the cruel Kaltenbrunner, the Admiral... ops, Feldmarschall Keitel, the (probably) guilt-ridden Frank, the coarse Streicher and Funk, and the repented enslaver Speer (even if the overall tone is a bit too indulgent towards the last one).

Another insipid part is the soap between Jackson and his secretary/mistress. Fortunately, some scenes were cut in the Italian edition, so I missed them (reading the others' review, it was probably a great deal).

In the end, "Nuremberg" is an above average TV production with good sequences and characterization. It handles a controversial historical event professionally and carefully. Cutting away some soapy parts, it wouldn't be bad even as a school projection.

*** out of 4 stars

Surprised at the lack of sophistication in many reviews

[lufts · 8/10 · 25 March 2014]

Writing in 2014 and having the benefit of reading all of the other reviews, as well as being a student of both the war, and the trials, I'm somewhat fascinated by how much others seem to miss about the actual trials, the war, and the film. First, considering the length of the the FIRST part of the Nuremburg trials (which went on long after this first portion, led mostly by General Telford Taylor who would go on to teach law at Columbia Law School, and whose magnum opus "Munich: The Price of Peace" is considered the standard bearer for history of that precursor to the war), condensing it into a 3 hour miniseries, the producers did a nice job, particularly in Brian Cox's portrayal of Herman Goerring.

However, what is missed is that part of Goerring arrogance during his direct examination, had to do with his slow, and painful recovery from both his morphine addiction, and his gross obesity.

By the end of the war, as mentioned by Goerring's wife in the film, the former Reichmarshall, had been stripped of his title and in fact, an SS squad had been sent to kill him.

Goerring had become a bumbling, bloated drug addict, incapable of performing almost any function.

And to Colonel Andrus credit, he made sure that Goerring got healthy before the trial.

Yet, it was just that, and Goerring's return to the former WWI flying ace status (Goerring replaced the Red Baron as Germany's greatest combat pilot during that war) that helped lead to his confrontation with Jackson.

As has been mentioned here, despite Alec Baldwin needing to "redeem" Jackson, in fact, there was really no redemption.

The transcripts of the trial are available to all, and Jackson's examination of Goerring was an unmitigated disaster, prosecutorially.

It was only Maxwell-Fyfe's brilliant cross that saved the day and it is a legal moment still studied by prosecutors to this day.

The so called affair between Jackson and the Jill Hennesy character is also silly.

As a final point, the unquestioned view of Albert Speer as remorseful is questionable at best.

One gets the impression from his "Inside the Third Reich" that it is likely that Speer was simply looking out for himself, and, having served his sentence, left Spandau and became a successful raconteur.

However, Speer was arguably the most important man in the Reich by the end of the war, and in fact, had made the Reich and the war effort even more efficient at the end, than the beginning. He was a long term member of the Nazi party (from 1931), and being in charge of everything in Germany, including the trains, which he claimed at the trial to not know were being used to transport death camp victims, his claim of not knowing rang very hollow.

The "conflict" between Speer and Goerring was also overplayed. Speer looked at Goerring still as the corpulent drug addict, while he was the regal Nazi. Tall, good looking and oh so efficient.

As for trying to kill Hitler, Speer himself said that he never actually meant to, and it was merely puffery.

What if you were the German banker?

[catherineserio · 7/10 · 28 June 2023]

I ask you, if you were the German banker during World War II, and the third Reich deposited an abundant amount of jewelry, wedding, bands, and gold teeth, what are you to do?

Who do you report that to? Do you refuse the deposit? Do you say oh that's obviously wrong but I'm gonna go along with it. Because if I don't, they're gonna shoot myself and my family. Do you step down from your position and try to leave the country?

It was sad during the movie when an order was given. Do you stop and think oh that goes against the Geneva convention. I better not do that. I'm not trying to take sides. People do things during war that they wouldn't normally do during peacetime. And yet a body of lawyers, judged soldiers during wartime when war was over.

Very well done

[bookoholic · 8/10 · 27 March 2001]

This is a very good adaptation of the Trials at Nuremberg. It shows actual footage of holocaust scenes and is not for the squeamish. However, it needs to be shown so that it will not be forgotten. This is good for teens who are mature enough to handle the graphic, completely true violence.

Dull, but fine enough history

[JurijFedorov · 6/10 · 23 July 2022]

I have watched the old movie about the trial. It was just weird with bad overacting. I've watched docs on the trial. I have seen the trial mentioned in many places. I know the basics already. Like many men I just tend to like WW2, history, and the moral dilemmas trials present. Unfortunately I just don't feel like this trial has much to offer entertainment wise which essentially is what a movie or TV show needs to do. I love court TV shows. I just adore the fight of intellects and the slow detective work. Defense says one thing and seems to be winning. Then the prosecutor finds out something smart and uses that against the defense. I could watch good court shows all day long. Unfortunately both in the movie and here the court case is presented in a boring way. There is zero back and forth. They try to create drama in a single Hermann Göring questioning, but it's extremely forced and doesn't work. The court case as presented here is boring and dry. They don't present clear evidence. There is no good defense whatsoever. It's just some random scenes from the real trial. I would have loved for them to present some stats, data, personal stories. Something to make it work. Initially they start out with the prosecutor setting up the court in Nuremberg. Building everything they need. Finding judges. That part is very fascinating. The debates about how to set it all up are great! Then the trial starts and the TV show bogs down into just silly personal statements. Lots of German leaders have vague statements about guilt. The prosecutors have statements about how important it is to punish these leaders. No info, no data, no proof either way. Just vague personal notions that become very tiresome pretty much right away.

There are also plenty of prison scenes. They are actually way more interesting than the trial. But yet again it's not interesting. A Jewish psychologist just interviews the prisoners one by one trying to make them admit to their guilt in court and trying to understand why they could be so evil. He learns nothing much and we never see him actually convince anyone. Hermann Göring is the main character. But the actor overacts the role in every single scene. He screams at people and tells rather pointless stories not focused on clear historical anecdotes. Yet they present him as this amazing manipulator. Which makes zero sense. If they had let the German roles be played by Germans we could have understood the appeal. He could scream in German making us see the power of Hitler in him. As everything is in English he just seems childish and stupid. Like a politician who just lost an election. That's a great fault really. The TV show is basically only interesting because of the historical aspect as there is no story or point to it. And since it doesn't even stay true to the language it kinda fails in that aspect too.

Obviously I'm glad it's made. And it looks great. The court looks great, the prison looks real, the few street scenes are fairly fine though way too few. It's always important to bring up the murders of Jews in Europe. Essential topic. On the other hand it's stuff you can find in a documentary. A TV show can either expand on the story or make it more fun to present it to a wider audience. And this does neither. You get random talk about nothing much most of the time and it's not that entertaining once the trial starts which is fairly early on. At the end I was bored. Maybe they could cut it down to a 2 hour movie. I feel like that would actually work way better. But 3 hours and getting so little info in return? They could at least have filled the dialogues with small stories about WW2 or the state of Germany. Make it worth all 3 hours. Unfortunately the doc is way more interesting. So I don't see much point in the TV show unless someone edits it down to 2 hours.

Best movie I've seen in a while!

[havamal · 10/10 · 17 August 2000]

This movie was very well done, the sets were amazingly reproduced, the actors did an excellent job, Brian Cox should win an award for his portrayal of Hermann Goering, Alec Baldwin was at his best in this movie, this is one I definitely want to add to my collection.

Great looking and probably accurate tale of evil on trial

[robertemerald · 7/10 · 1 May 2020]

The number of impressive actors in Nuremberg is worth the ticket price just on its own. All do a great job. There's enough interesting historical detail to keep one going. The recreation of Nuremberg the town, after the bombings, was brilliant. This is movie quality TV. I've just read some of the criticisms and some reviewers have a point, one is left dangling a bit as to motives and ultimate fate of some of the key players. Regardless, this is great viewing if one is interested in the very last gasp of the Third Reich.

Movie made solely to feed the ego of Alec Baldwin

[JGnino · 4/10 · 18 July 2000]

This movie was disappointing. It was incomplete and dull. While Alec Baldwin tried to portray himself as the Perfect fair and just prosecutor (not to mention executive producer), the movie never showed any of the defense counsels or tried to challenge the audience with an actual meaningful debate on the subject of how a country could be led down such a terrible path.

Sure, nobody wants to defend the Nazi's point of view, but THAT WAS THE POINT of the Nuremberg Trails! Four hours of simply bashing on the Nazi's.... c'mon! Thats been done already!

I really think Alec Baldwin should just stick to being Kim Bassinger's husband.

Right after the movie ended, TNT showed the 1959 movie, Trail at Nuremberg. That movie is FAR superior.