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.****
Rating: 
Summary: Speed History. tries to do too much !
Review: Nuremberg, a city in Germany, has a past intertwined indelibly with the Nazi era. It was here that Hitler staged his magnificent rallies to inspire his ardent followers and convince everybody else to become ardent followers. It was in the city of Nuremberg that the first of many laws directed against Jews we issued. It is most famous today as the city where the last drama of the third Reich was played out. The triumphant allied powers chose this city for their trials of those nazi leaders who survived. It was also the site of the executions for eleven of those leaders. I thought the book was forced to give short shrift to many of the topics the surround the trial. However for the ultimate in condensation the mini-series really barrels through too much too quickly. The movie spends far too much time on the 'romantic' side story of Justice Jackson and his secretary (oh and the movie neglects to mention that Jackson's son was living in the house with him at this time). I have no idea if such an affair took place, but I still think there was more than enough drama happening right out of the history to waste any time on such nonsense. The basic theme of the movie gets boiled down to the "Jackson vs. Goring" fight. And that is too bad because in that case the good guys end up looking like ill-prepared schoolboys and the evil Nazi ends up looking like a peace-loving nationalist. Also looking like a good guy is Speer, a man with loyalty no to no one but himself. I also thought it was a cop-out to have everybody speaking English in the courtroom, while this was a good deal easier on the viewer, it gave a vastly false impression of how 'international' the international tribunal really was. This might seem a minor point, but it isn't. This was a ground breaking moment in the history of world diplomacy and jurisprudence and to gloss over the difficulties involved also causes the producers to gloss over the triumphs won.
Rating:
Summary: Could have been better , lost opportunity, unless you see it
Review: only as a primer. Terrible Casting! None of the actors portraying the nazi criminals looked like the real ones. Ironically the guy playing Alfred Rosenberg looks exactly like the real Arthur Seyss Inquart looked like. So why wasn't given that part? Maybe the producers didn't care. They wanted to portray them as second rate criminals. Except for Goering. They all looked like petty criminals, out of some insane asylum or second rate prison. But the truth is that all these nazis, except for Julius streicher were college graduates, respected in their fields, brilliant lawyers, Schacht was a financial genius, and their i.q's were high. ... they were not stupid, criminals yes, stupid no: Hjalmar Schacht 143, Arthur Seyss-Inquart 141, Hermann Goering 138, and so on. Remember that the minimum i.q for entry at MENSA is 130.
The love story: do we really care about Alec Baldwin's involvement with this woman? It takes away from the central story. Plus, the real Jackson was stocky, bespectacled, with a little moustache. No Alec Baldwin certainly. In defense of the love story, we can say that it was put there in order to make a concession to enhance its appeal to a wider audience, women specially.
The Russian, Nikitchenko. It seems like everybody was taking a particular pleasure in making him look like an idiot. Hello!! The cold war is over! But, truth be said, the Russians were always a pain in the ..., just saying no to everything the western allies proposed. The good things: everything said in the movie is true. The performance of Goering, dominating the stage, was brilliantly played by Brian Cox. Overall the acting is... too predictable, too "we're the good guys, you're the bad guys", and the thing is that at Nuremberg there were no easy answers, and the acting should reflect that. The Nazis were evil , scourge of the Human race, yes, but ... why? Why they acted the way they did? Was Hans Frank, a Brilliant Lawyer, who played Piano, Chess, spoke Latin and could recite Shakespeare from memory in the same league as Jeffrey Dahmer? Or Charles Manson?. No, there were no easy answers, and to this day no one really understands why the nazis did what they did, but formulaic storytelling and clichéd acting won't help to understand. That being said, I think it is a good place to start, but reading the books this movie was based on and others would be more helpful understanding "why". Three stars for the effort and for bringing this historical moment for everyone to see.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor Acting Talent
Review: The movie wastes most of the time on court presentations with very little on background such as concentration camp or Nazi crimes etc. The guy who plays Judge Jackson is very self conscious and doesn't blend into the role. The only one who was any good was the guy who played Herman Goring.
Rating: 
Summary: History lesson not to be forgotten!
Review: The Nuremberg trials were the outcome and, in a way, the end of one of the most hideous and vicious periods in history; the systematic implementation of the "Final Solution" killing six million Jews and many other "deviates" like homosexuals, gypsies and those decent people that tried to help one of these escape the fate of the death camps. It is now 55 years ago and I think most of the younger generation have only little, perhaps even too little, knowledge about this period. Therefore I admire Baldwin's honest attempt to bring this period to attention again. Yes, there are many things in the movie like his own bland acting and the rather wooden characters of most of the criminals ( with, of course, the shining exception of Brian Cox). Also, the subplots are distracting, but maybe they are necessary these days to continue to capture the attention of the audience and to soften a little the blows of the terrible recounts in the movie. On the whole, however, I find it a good and honest reflection on these trials and the courageous inclusion of some of the original footage of the camps ensures that, after watching the movie, nobody can have any misinterpretation whatsoever of the terrible crimes committed by these men. If the mission of the movie was to make sure that this lesson of history is never, ever forgotten they were successful. If only it makes people more aware of the dreadfulness of the Neo-Nazi movement and keeps our children away from it, the purpose was more than served
Rating:
Summary: "A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY"-Justice Robert Jackson
Review: The Nuremberg Trials: Major War Figures Trial November 21, 1945
"The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that CIVILIZATION cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it CANNOT SURVIVE THEIR BEING REPEATED. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."
That lengthy quote, part of an even lengthier speech, is mouthed verbatim by Mr. Justice Jackson (Alec Baldwin). What I love most about this film is its adherence to historical details about this first of thirteen trials in Nuremberg. The 21 defendants to this trial, named the Major War Figures Trial, are seated precisely in the order they were in during the original trial with Goering seated conspicuously in the corner. The Nazi defendant Kaltenbrunner's character, who was the friend who introduced the Nazi party to the infamous Adolph Eichmann (executed in Jerusalem in 1961), has the height, (he was 6'6") and scar on his left cheek. Indeed, the 21 defendants' personalities, behaviors, looks, are all effectively recreated in the cast who play them. Alec Baldwin is practically the only American on the cast. Most of the rest are Canadian. I believe Baldwin helped produce this TV miniseries which first appeared on TNT. Brian Cox, as others have noted, was fab as Goehring, playing him as the clever, cunning, and charming Reichsmarschall he was, who entertains naive U.S. soldiers and whose seeming lightheartedness to the whole affair presents problems to the prosecutors and military in charge of him. Eleven of the 21 defendants were sentenced to death, the rest given prison sentences. Goehring, the day before their executions on October 16, 1946, swallowed cyanide smuggled in probably by his American military guard. At first, I was disappointed with this film, I had seen Judgment at Nuremberg right before, yet watching it again and doing some net research, I must say that it is good, although somewhat inferior, yet worthy of five stars for content, its faithful reproduction of this trial. I was most impressed by Matt Craven who plays the Army's psychologist, Captain Gilbert, in charge of the defendants. His interrogations of and interactions with those men added a dimension that was lacking in the first film, revealing the thought processes of these most notorious criminals; some of them find out that he is jewish. It was during this trial, the original War Criminals Trial, that the actual footage of concentration camp atrocities was shown; the film shown in this movie and Judgment at Nuremberg is that same film taken by allied soldiers liberating the camps.
The movie is based on the book Nuremberg:Infamy on Trial by Joseph Persico.
Rating:
Summary: Nuremberg
Review: The term "No one is above the LAW" comes to life when you see this great movie,of course,based on true story. Just a few,but more than enough Nazi's who were high officials of Hitler's regime are brought to justice and they were all captured by heroic U.S. soldiers (as always).
Chief Justice R.Jackson (Baldwin) is appointed to go to Nuremberg to preside over the sentencing of these Nazi beasts who (most of them) were more than proud over their horrible crimes done during the Holocaust. Chief Justice R.Jackson,offers them a fair trial because if he didn't, that would have been as unfair as what Nazi's done to the Jews.
Then...the trial of the century begins. I must have watched this movie about fifteen times,in a way it helps me and it is always so pleasant to see that there is such thing as international justice in this world after all - thanks to U.S.A. all of the times.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling History
Review: This fact based tele-play is very well done. The acting is all first rate (though one is hard pressed to find a scene inwhich the great Jill Hennessy is not serving or drinking coffee!). Alas, the book onwhich this is based reveals the 'climactic' confrontation between Goerring and his prosecutor was not nearly so one sided. However, gives good insight to the real people and even infighting behind this historic trial.
Rating:
Summary: Lest we forget
Review: This made-for-tv movie portrays the Nazi war criminals being tried in Nuremburg. Alec Baldwin plays Robert Jackson, a US Supreme Court Justice who is asked to temporarily step down from his position in order to act as Chief Prosecuter against the war criminals. This event is portrayed as a new and unique idea in the annals of war, and the importance of the situation is stressed, not only so that justice can be served, but that the trials would serve as an example in future wars. There is plenty of political intrigue as the Allies and their foes alike jockey for position and power. Baldwin at first falters when he faces the charismatic and manipulative Hermann Goering, but eventually he hits his stride and boldly does his duty. The romantic subplot is almost distracting at times, but generally the movie holds the viewer's attention for the entire 3 hours. New generations of Americans need to know the dangers of absolute power in the hands of ruthless men and this movie generally succeeds in that goal.
Rating:
Summary: Bring a Box of Tissues!!
Review: This movie was so moving that I cried several times throughout the course of it. This is one of the few movies I have ever seen that actually manages to build some sort of sympathy for the war criminals on trial at Nuremberg. At one point during the movie, it is said that "Evil is the complete lack of empathy." The movie brilliantly illustrates this point by proving human life to be so valuable that when the war criminals' sentences are handed down, the viewer finds him/herself gasping and crying at the imposing deaths of these men, who, in popular opinion, DERSERVED to die. My only complaint about this movie is the casting of Alec Baldwin as chief prosecutor. I mean, WHAT? I respect Alec Baldwin as an actor, but there is some kind of underlying sleaziness about him that cannot be hidden, even by such a dignified role. I think his part could have been played much more effectively by a more "distinguished" actor. Parts of the movie seemed to me to be a bit long-winded, but nonetheless integral to the movie. All in all, the movie was first rate and well-acted, a really interesting and moving look at one of the darkest periods in the history of humanity.
|
