Customer Reviews

Nuremberg

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The other reviewers have pointed out the importance of this film, so I would like to make a few points that may be important.
(1) As in so many Western films, the Russians (or, actually, Soviets) are a caricature-they are portrayed as uncouth louts.
I wasn't happy with the scene of the party at Jackson's house where the German butler and his wife refuse to serve the Russian judge because their son was killed on the Russian front.
Jackson's secretary tries to calm the situation without showing any understanding of the Russian's response that most of the victims of Nazism's horrors were residents of the USSR, simply dismissing it as politics. In reality, everyone admitted that the Soviet role in the trial was basically fair and constructive, in spite of the fact that the Soviet judges were totally under the thumb of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin who really was no better than Hitler and his Nazis whom they were supposed to be judging.
(2) Albert Speer is portrayed as a truly penitent Nazi technocrat. Many people, including Airey Neave (the British officer who presented the indictments and who was tragically murdered by the Irish Republican Army in 1979) felt that it was unfair to execute Nazi Labor chief Sauckel and to let Speer off to become a prosperous, professional "ex-Nazi" when all Sauckel did was round up laborers for Speers armaments industries. Speer does admit that he was always pressuring Sauckel for more laborers, but Neave and others feel that his remorse for what he did was mainly to get sympathy from the judges and that he never really confronted his own, direct personal responsibility for the horrors of the Nazi regime, rather than just the collective responsibility he accepted.
(3) Although judge Francis Biddle is shown to be a rather petty man, the film doesn't make clear that both he and Justice Jackson were miscast in their roles in the trial, because Biddle had a career as a prosecutor but was chosen by President Truman to be a Judge in the trial, whereas Jackson was a Supreme Court Justice yet was chosen to be a prosecutor in the trial.
(4) The film, probably correctly, leaves the role of Goering's guard "Tex" as ambiguous in his enabling Goering to get ahold of the cynanide capsule in order to cheat the hangman. It is not clear even today whether Tex really wanted to help Goering get the capsule, or whether it was just negligence and disobeyal of orders when he brought Goering the belongings he asked for.
(5) Psychiatrist Capt Gustav Gilbert's great "revelation" in discovering that the reason the Nazis did such terrible things was "a lack of empathy" is certainly over-simplistic. Although it is true that they were indifferent to the suffering they caused, this does not explain how they managed to set up an industrialized mass-murder machine and how they got much of Europe to at least passively accept the Holocaust. Many people are indifferent to the suffering of others, but that doesn't mean they go out and deliberately cause suffering to their neighbors.

Having said these things, I still think everyone should see this film to understand the greatest tragedy of the 20th century-the Second World War.

To the mind of many historical observers, nothing so defines the striking manifest differences between the horrific nature of the Third Reich from the more rational and compassionate constitutional democracies that largely comprised the Allies as the way in which the defendants of the trials at Nuremberg were handled. With painstaking precision (and at extraordinary cost in terms of international arm-twisting and back-door deals), the proponents of a judicial proceeding designed to illustrate the manifest individual guilt of the various Nazi officials forged a result that still stands today as a model of a non-retributive effort in the face of extraordinary pressure. In this carefully reearched and terrifically presented movie depiction of the events, one comes to appreciate the problems facing the Allies in proceeding with the trials. And while one can hardly describe the Nuremberg trials as unflawed or perfect, they did prove to the world that the Allies were willing to subscribe to the existing canon of law to judge the actions of the Nazis.

Doing so was anything but easy, Indeed, achieving a fair result that would literally convince the watching world of the guilt of the participants in the war was anything but easy, and moving toward that deliberate goal is a theme providing an interesting theme punctuating the pace of the book. Churchill wanted revenge by way of summary trials and quick retribution, while the Russians just wanted to string up the whole group in a mass hanging. Yet American Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (Alex Baldwin) was able to resolve the differences well enough to proceed, although at times the viewer wonders if the trials will be anything like the fair-minded judicial event he has in mind.

Indeed, the back-stabbing, personal ambitions, and petty jealousies of the various factions, trial officials, and individual defendants becomes a kind of political circus that sometimes resembles nothing so much as vaudevillian showboating.
Still, the efforts at conducting a fair and open forum for the world to watch as the prosecution and defense teams clashed before the international tribunal prevailed, and the trials concluded with mixed results in terms of the results. Most of the defendants were found guilty, and many were hanged.

Yet few observers doubted that the defendants had had their day in court along with and adequate opportunity to defend their actions to a watching world. Given how little justice and liberty they collectively allowed for their tens of millions of victims, it is remarkable just how civilized and dignified a proceeding the Nuremberg trials were, with all their theatrics and subterranean undercurrents.

One marvels at the fact that after fifty years the world still stands in awe at the deliberate, careful, and methodical way in which the Allies achieved the result of a rational and fair trial of the defendants in history's most horrific modern nightmare, the terror of the Third Reich. This is an interesting and absorbing film presentation, and it is fascinating and entertaining to watch. It was also particularly interesting to me because it explores the lives of each of the defendants in looking at their individual guilt. I recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about these singular trials and their impact on history.

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.

Alec Baldwin's "Nuremberg" is not the equal of the earlier masterpieces "Judgment at Nuremberg" and "Schindler's List." It also has the further disadvantage of being a work better appreciated by those with a substantial historical background. The previous films could be enjoyed even by viewers possessing little knowledge about that horrendous period. The names of Robert Jackson, Herman Goering, Hans Frank, and Albert Speer are admittedly not widely recognizable.

The Nuremberg trials were conducted by the Allied victors soon after the end of World War II. It was the first international tribunal in the history of humankind devoted to the criminal behavior of the losers. The challenge was to conduct a fair trial premised upon justice and not revenge. Although the evidence was overwhelming regarding the holocaust, large scale theft, and other transgressions, many of the defendants claimed that they merely followed orders. This line of defense may seem appalling in our day and age, but during that era it was widely accepted. Judge Jackson (Baldwin) was picked by President Harry Truman to carry out this most delicate task without alienating our Soviet Russian allies. The irony of course is that the Soviets were also murderous thugs, but in this less than perfect world compromise with evil is sometimes unavoidable.

Brian Cox brilliantly portrays Reichmarshal Goering, the heroic German fighter pilot of the First World War who ultimately became Hitler's right hand man. Goering possessed superb management skills, courage, a great sense of humor, cultural sophistication, and an ability to insightfully comment on the Nazi reign of terror. He also had a hard time comprehending the legitimate reasons why the civilized world considered him a diabolical monster. Observing the brief discussions between Goering and U.S. Army psychologist Captain Gustav Gilbert (Matt Craven) may do more to reveal the mindset of the Nazi hierarchy than reading numerous books. Gilbert a Jewish American had the awkward responsibility of providing care and understanding to those who ruthlessly slaughtered his own people. Captain Gilbert's self discipline and maturity were constantly put to the test.

Artistically speaking "Nuremberg" deserves only four stars, but that is not a valid excuse to keep you from seeing it. The very last scene has Max von Sydow as Samuel Rosenman uttering the hope that perhaps the Nuremberg trials will be the last of their kind. Rosenman is not childishly naive, and knows that history will likely be repeated. The at least metaphorical reality of original sin regrettably makes this a virtual certainty. We have the moral duty to learn how to increase the odds in our favor. Make sure that you see "Nuremberg!"

"Nuremberg" is based on the true story of the notorious "Nuremberg Trial" that took place at the conclusion of WWII in Germany. The trial was led by Justice Robert Jackson (Alec Baldwin), whose vision was to prove that western morality was superior to that of the Nazis. Twenty-two high-ranking Nazis were forced to stand trial for committing crimes against humanity. Included in the Nazi gang was the infamous Hermann Goering (brilliantly portrayed by Brian Cox) who was Hitler's second in command.

One of Jackson's primary concerns was to give the Nazis a fair trial, of the likes that their victims never obtained. As the movie progresses, Jackson runs into Goering in the witness box and finds him to be somewhat of a challenge. The courtroom exchanges between Baldwin and Cox are highly entertaining and are some of the best scenes in the movie.

To give the Americans a run for their money, Goering proceeds to incite the other officers so that they become increasingly defiant. In an attempt to sway the Nazi officers so that they admit fault during the trial, they send in a Jewish Psychologist, Captain Gustav Gilbert (portrayed by Matt Craven). Throughout the movie Craven's character comes to terms with the atrocities that were inflicted on his people by speaking to some of the architects of the maniacal genocide. His dialogues with the Nazis allow him to reach an interesting conclusion as to the nature of evil in men.

History buffs should be warned that this movie is only based on the true story and may be inaccurate with regards to some of the details. Having said that, the story is well presented and holds the viewers' interest for the entire 3 hours. To add a bit of spice to the proceedings, Jackson is given a love interest (his secretary). I am not sure whether this was fabricated or actually occurred in real life. Nonetheless the viewer is given a treat by witnessing the evolution of Jackson's romance as the trial unfolds.

I must say that this movie is highly entertaining and eye opening at the same time. The cast is superb including the already mentioned Alec Baldwin along with Michael Ironside, Max von Sydow, and the always-entertaining Christopher Plummer. It is rare these days to find a 3-hour movie that can captivate an audience for its entire duration. I am pleased to say that this is one of those movies. I highly recommend "Nuremberg" to anyone that wants to learn more about the atrocities that took place in Europe in WWII and how they were dealt with. At the same time, I would also recommend this movie to anyone that is simply seeking an entertaining wartime movie that contains a brilliant plot and a great cast.

This Nuremberg DVD is a factual account of what happened. Most people do not realize that there was more than one Nuremberg trial. There were two movies made about the trials and it should be known that this DVD covers the first, and most important, trial of Hitler's fellow criminals. It's superbly acted and directed. If you purchase this DVD, you must purchase the version staring Spencer Tracy. It's a continuation of the incident at Nuremberg.

The primary complaint about this will probably be "it's too long". The actual Nuremburg trials 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...

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.

'Nuremberg', for a TV miniseries production, is a wonderful production. The movie recreates the court room setting and drama wonderfully, as well as the physical appearance of the defendants.

However, I would like to make my observations concerning certain weaknesses of the film:
-There is barely enough time of the film devoted to the actual court-room examinations and cross-examinations. Perhaps, this would have been feasible if there wasn't so much concentration on the inception, organisation and the buildup of the film.

-What is the point of adding a hinted romance between the chief prosecutor and his assistant? Was it relevant in any way and did it help to keep our interest in the film? I think not.

-Brian Cox plays the role of Goering absolutely wonderfully. The Nazi leader is not demonised, yet is shown for his aristocracy and great intellect, as well as his ability to sway his authority on other people. Watching the movie will surely help one understand why Goering became so influential and became Hitler's deputy.

-There is too much concentration on the friendship developed between Lt. Tex Wheelis and Goering. There is still a looming conspiracy on the American Lieutenant's role partaking in Hitler's suicide, but there has been not one iota of evidence affirming his involvement, so why not-so-subtly imply it in the film?

-The Russian staff were portrayed as seemingly ignorant, revengeful superficial characters, which is far from the truth. The movie managed not to stumble on older films' weaknesses; the demonization of the Nazis, yet does so with the Russians! The Cold War is over!

-I understand that the development of all the defendants' cases would not have been feasible in a movie, yet some omissions are daunting! In the judges' rendering of sentences, they highlight the decision to acquit Hjalmar Schacht, certainly an important decisions with vast consequences. Yet, why was there no cross-examination of him throughout the movie, as he was described as the most eloquent of the defendants, surpassing even Albert Speer!

-Language? Some of the defendants were known to speak English fluently throughout the trial, revealing often their aristocratic background (von Ribbentrop for example). Others did not, yet the distinction was not made at all in the movie, rather making the defendants speak English with very ludicrous accents.

To conclude, 'Nuremberg' certainly is a great introduction to the trials themselves, but those with a bit more advanced knowledge on the issue, will remain unsatisfied.

Overall, 'Judgment at Nuremberg' is the best movie available concerning the legal aspect of the trials, even though it does not touch upon the 'war criminals' but the Nazi judges.

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!