ChicRawIdol
A brilliant film that helped define a genre
Huievest
Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
HottWwjdIam
There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.
mudderfukker
"Only following orders"... we've all heard that was the reason (or excuse) proffered by many Nazis on trial. We could say the same thing about the actors in this "made for TV" "Dramatization" of the Nuremberg Trials. I've noticed that some reviewers have delved into the actual Nuremberg trials, and I won't go into that can of worms. Safe to say that this video covers all the well-known trivia and 'phrases' remembered from the NTs. It isn't horrible...after all, you've got some very capable actors in the lineup. It isn't for want of drama, as it is relying on the NT and all the drama surrounding one of the most well-known trials of the 20th century, along with one of the most 'interesting' of defendants ever put on trial, Hermann Goering. Having said that, it would be probably be hard work to screw this up... but it looks like they tried, lol. First off, there's a squeamish, cheesy sort-of romance going on between the lead prosecutor and his secretary that has nothing to do with the story. I can only assume this was done in keeping with a modern tradition of putting chick-flic crap into every movie, no matter the genre in an attempt to broaden the target audience to include ditzy females. Secondly, the pace and dialogue is hurried and brief. You won't find any 'great' dialogues or epic/memorable scenes here, even when they try. The performances are capable, the directing is functional, the costumes and sets are fairly accurate.... remember: "Made for television" ;) IF, ( I stress, IF) you have never known anything about the NTs and are getting your 'feet wet', I suppose this is an easy enough starting point. As far as performances, I'd say Brian Cox steals the show as HG. He is a great actor and effortlessly fulfills his duty here. Baldwin is.... well, Baldwin. He's in a lot of stuff bc he himself is such a 'pliable' personality, that he can basically be himself in just about any role, lol. But, he does alright. There are some others yo may recognize, like Plummer, who also is kinda himself in every role, but he does it (himself) so well, you don't mind, lol. Von Sydow is in there as well as Feore, both great actors doing great with what little they have been given to work with.I would like to 'warn' anyone, and I don't really consider this a 'spoiler', that there will be films of the concentration camps shown, and they are gruesome, to say the least. It is not what I would consider 'suitable for children', and I wouldn't show it to my child less than about 15-16 years of age, unless they are only a few years younger but very mature, or you censor that part by having them leave the room/fast- forward past it, etc. Like I said, I won't go into the actual NT and the 'pros and cons of war', but without a doubt, this was a very 'simplistic' representation of what happened during WWII and the Nuremberg Trials and chock full of good ol' 'USA is the greatest' point of view. Don't get me wrong, I'm a vet and very patriotic about the my country, the US, but the "Nazis are bad and the US are heroes" is a very one dimensional narrative of WWII. "The victors will always judge the vanquished"... it has been true for thousands of years, and it'll never be any other way. The original, phenomenal, 'Judgement at Nuremberg' (1961) is as in- depth and esoteric as this one is superficial... this one is simplistic, about the main trial for the Nazi leaders, and the 1961 film is complex, nuanced and about the judges' trial... a much more intense and dramatic film, one of the best. Overall, I'd say it's worth watching, just keep in mind that it was a modest budget', made for TV' video.
Elia Ansaloni
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
Internist
There can be no doubt that subjects such as the Nuremberg trial or the enormity of Nazi war crimes are of tremendous gravity. But, it does not follow that depictions of, and productions about, those subjects automatically make the production itself excellent. Indeed, and as "Nuremberg" demonstrates, historical import is no guarantee of a film's quality. Among other things, there still must be a logical plot, a compelling screenplay, intelligent dialogue, fine acting, and appropriate casting. Nuremberg fails to deliver on most of these.What could the screenwriters have been thinking when they gave the (rather vapid) affair between Justice Jackson and his secretary so much screen time? That contemporary audiences still require a subplot revolving around sex to keep their interest? Yet, that story line is included. And emphasized. Repeatedly.And was the director not aware that Christopher Plummer's character's deep tan would appear ludicrously incongruous in a movie set in post war Germany? Along the same lines, did the director feel that audiences would relate better to a female protagonist of the 1940's whose mannerisms and demeanour are more typical of a "modern" woman of 2000? Any film about the Nuremberg trial automatically starts off with credibility. The subject matter guarantees it. And any film about Nuremberg automatically contains the crucial elements required to move audiences, to stir their emotions. It is not just ironic, but sad, then, that Nuremberg squanders those inherent pluses; that it fails to deliver and that, ultimately it fails to move us. And that is tragic for many many reasons.
sports2119
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.
