Rating: 
Summary: Historically accurate but a tad unengaging
Review: 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 unengaging. 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.
Rating:
Summary: An anticlimax blandly presented
Review: From late 1945 to early 1949, the Nazi assault on Europe was brought to closure with a spate of war crimes litigation, collectively known as the Nuremberg Trials. As an absolutely necessary vehicle for making the world comprehend the extent of Nazi barbarism, it was, in a sense, anticlimactic. After years of total war, with all its attendant death and destruction, the deliberations and speeches of judges and lawyers in a big room can hardly be considered otherwise. NUREMBERG, released as a U.S. television miniseries, depicts the first of twelve Nuremberg Trials, that one involving the legal prosecution and judgement of 21 members of the Nazi hierarchy: Göring, Speer, Kaltenbrunner, Jodl, Frick, von Schirach, Raeder, Hess, von Papen, Dönitz, Frank, Keitel, Streicher, Schacht, von Ribbentrop, Seyss-Inquart, Funk, Sauckel, Rosenberg, von Neurath, and Fritzsche. Three others were indicted, but not in attendance: Bormann (not in custody), Ley (suicide), and Krupp (poor health). The cast is large, but the two principal players are Alec Baldwin as the U.S. Chief Prosecutor, Robert Jackson, and Brian Cox as Reichsmarschall Göring. The former does his usual, inspired best to create a bland character. The latter does a wonderful job recreating the flamboyant Luftwaffe chief, although one wonders why the producers couldn't find someone who could do a credible German accent, much less any sort of accent whatsoever. (Perhaps that's one of the differences between a "made-for-TV" film and a big screen release.) Indeed, one of the film's best features is watching Göring charm his way into the friendship of the Army lieutenant assigned as his personal minder, thus providing himself the avenue to cheat the hangman in the end. At one point in the storyline, Jackson's deputy prosecutors ask him who the Nazis' defense lawyers are to be. U.S. Army lawyers? German lawyers? Nazi lawyers? Jackson sidesteps the question, and the viewer never learns the answer, though it's obvious later on that Germans were assigned as defense counselors. However, the defense's opening and/or closing statements were never re-created. This was a major omission, since some of the film's strongest moments came from the re-enactment of witness testimony and visual evidence presentation, as well as portions of the prosecution's opening and closing statements. NUREMBERG has a couple of totally needless subplots. Since the U.S. government denied its prosecuting staff the benefit of taking spouses along to Germany, Jackson was inordinately lucky to have along his winsome chief secretary, Elsie Douglas, played by Jill Hennessy. While the two were waiting at the stateside airport for their ride to Europe, Elsie complains about having put a run in her nylons, and shows Jackson a bit of shapely leg to illustrate. At that point, I thought the trial depiction might degenerate into serving as the backdrop for some tawdry affair, but, mercifully, the director swerved away from that pothole in the nick of time. Then, there's the Army prison's Jewish psychologist, who spends his time trying to get a clue as to how the Reich's leadership could justify the genocide of his people. It isn't until he interviews the Auschwitz commandant, Rudolf Hoess, a witness for Kaltenbrunner, that he finally understands. Hoess asks the rhetorical question, "Does the exterminator care about the rats he kills?" (Actually, this was one of the film's strongest scenes, as Hoess is chillingly played.) For one with no prior knowledge of the Nuremberg trials, NUREMBERG will serve as a fine introduction. However, the good and bad aspects of the movie cancel each other out and result in a surprisingly spiritless piece. Though a film of fiction, a much better treatment of Nazi war crimes is THE MUSIC BOX, also reviewed by me on this website.
Rating: 
Summary: Tearjerker
Review: I first saw Nuremberg in the seventh grade. I don't know about the rest of my class, but I was in tears. I had to leave the room because I was so upset. The most compelling scene, the one that made me start crying, was the scene with the concentration camp footage. Any movie that can make me cry is worth 5 stars in my book.
Rating: 
Summary: Scene Missing!
Review: I first saw this mini-series on video last year and thought it was terrific. The most compelling aspect of the production is Brian Cox's Herman Goering, who goes far beyond the traditional "fat Nazi bastard" conception. The most dramatic and insightful scenes are those with Goering, particularly the schizm he creates between the repentant Nazis (such as Speer) and the fanatics. The problem is, though, that on the DVD I have, the critical scene is missing! I don't know, maybe I nodded off or went through a time warp, but the scene just doesn't seem to be there. Perhaps my version is some kind of trimmed version; it's presented as a single movie rather than as two episodes. I know that other similar productions lose scenes for movie "conversion" but surely some of the pointless love story would be a far better candidate than the crucial lunch room scene. Throughout the rest of the DVD, this scene is repeatedly referred to, and plays a significant part in the major sub-plot about the psychology of the Nazi regime and of Germany. This is disasterous omission and may prompt my first unhappy customer return ever! I'm going to go back and check the DVD again right now, just to make sure. By the way, I had considered the fact that I may have remembered the movie wrong and the scene was in fact part of another lunch room sequence. But no, there's a clip from it in the trailer!
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest films ever made.
Review: I had first seen this film on TNT and I thought it was very good. When I found out that it was going to be released on DVD, I bought it immediately. I'm also glad that it's presented in a Widescreen format. I had read books on the Nuremberg Trials and found this film to be suspenseful and dramatic. I also thought that it had a great cast which gave good performances. I think this is very well-written and well presented. This movie is also similar in some ways to the 1961 film "Judgement at Nuremberg". This movie is historically accurate and I enjoyed watching it. I also think that this film is really worth watching.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor Representation of History
Review: I should have known during the opening credits that this was going to be a disappointment. The series was based upon the book Nuremberg "Infamy on Trial", but the screenwriter was not Persico but an unknown. I suspect that given Persico has ethical standards of reporting history, he refused to bestow the hallmark of authenticity to this work of largely fiction. Central to the plot is the evidence of the grotesque Georing and his battles with the four prosecutors. This mini-series would have the world believe that Robert Jackson got the better of Georing in the second round. This was not the case, as every written testimony of trial will attest. Jackson's performance was lamentable - as was the performance of the majority of the American prosecutors used during the trial - and it was left to the brilliant advocacy of the British prosecutor, Maxwell-Fyfe, to expose Georing for the hideous murderer that he was. As an American, I feel ashamed when history is corrected for domestic consumption often to the detriment of our only true ally, Britain. That we should feel a psychological need to do this repeatedly, only displays our continuing lack of confidence in ourselves. There is a more serious point at stake, however, in that the study of History has largely been reduced to the visual form. We have the responsibility to ensure for future generations that this is done as accurately and objectively as possible. Nuremberg fails on both counts.
Rating:
Summary: Good depection of nuremberg
Review: I thought that Nuremberg was a great depiction of the war crimes trial. Alec Baldwin did a great performance as Robert Jackson. Brain Cox played a good Herman Goering. The other actors also gave good performances in there roles (The actor who played Psychologist Gustav Gilbert was especially good). Nuremberg is however not problem proof. The hangings for example are not accurate. Several of the convicted slowly strangled to death instead of dying instantly, like in the film. Also, Streicher made a bigger performance in the gallows than simply saying 'Heil Hitler' before he was hung. All of the Defendants are shown. But some star only briefly. Rudolph Hess, for example, spends most of the film quiet and pretending to be insane. He speaks for about 30 seconds total. That is about the total screen time Robert Ley has before committing suicide. Arthur Seyess-Inquart has only one major scene, and that is when he enters his plea. All in all, Nuremberg is a good movie, with good acting. A great beginners lesson on the trial. But for people looking for a great Nuremberg film, Judgment at Nuremberg (Though not based on the first trial) and Nuremberg: Tyranny on Trial are also available.
Rating:
Summary: Tearjerker
Review: If nothing else, we can count on HBO to give tv movies the budget they sometimes deserve, and a two-part series is probably the best format for "Nuremberg", given the length of the movie. While it's far from perfect, the movie is entertaining enough to keep you involved the whole way through, and the performances across the board (with the exception of Jill Henessey) are above par. Brian Cox--one of the most underrated actors of all time--steals the show as Hitler's Deputy Maniac, while Alec Baldwin as the lead is capable enough. Strangely, it's character actor Matt Craven as the prison psychiatrist who also rises above the mediocrity. There are better WWII related films out there, but as TV-movies go, this one isn't a waste of time or money.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable Docudrama
Review: If nothing else, we can count on HBO to give tv movies the budget they sometimes deserve, and a two-part series is probably the best format for "Nuremberg", given the length of the movie. While it's far from perfect, the movie is entertaining enough to keep you involved the whole way through, and the performances across the board (with the exception of Jill Henessey) are above par. Brian Cox--one of the most underrated actors of all time--steals the show as Hitler's Deputy Maniac, while Alec Baldwin as the lead is capable enough. Strangely, it's character actor Matt Craven as the prison psychiatrist who also rises above the mediocrity. There are better WWII related films out there, but as TV-movies go, this one isn't a waste of time or money.
Rating: 
Summary: Effective Remake of 1961 Nazi-Trials Classic
Review: No Hollywood Superstars like Dietrich, Clift, Tracy, Garland, et al, are featured in this re-make of the b&w Classic, yet the attempt to re-create the essence of the Post-WW II Nazi Trials in Nuremberg delivered a respectable production. Alec Baldwin leads a cast of lesser known actors as the US Military Prosecutor in charge of the tribunal who would decide the fate of dozens of high ranking German Officials responsible for the gruesome deaths of millions of innocent people, as part of the master plan of their "Fuehrer" Adolf Hitler. Many additional scenes (omitted in the 1961 version) include the developing friendship between a condemned Nazi Official and a young American Serviceman, who is not completely sure whether Hitler's ideas were so "wrong" at all. Towards the end, it is implied that this young soldier must have been the one who slipped the to-be-hanged Nazi prisoner poison, so he would escape the nouse. A gripping moment, showing the different views held by different people in a different time. The horrors described in the many testemonies given by victims and eye witnesses were not captured with the emotions and icy shivers of the b&w original. Judy Garland's account of how an elderly friend was humiliated and tortured simply for being a Jew will not be duplicated by any 21st Century Hollywood re-make. The tears cried in empathy for Judy will not roll down your cheeks watching the 2000 treatment of a the near-identical script. If (and only if) you prefer Technicolor to films made in b&w, you will like this picture. Otherwise, go get the 1961 Oscar-Winner, it is by far a better production.****
|
