amwcsu From 1998 to the present the TNT network has made a series of well-acted films worthy of awards and praise from viewer and critic alike. Not many TV movies can make this claim. Nuremburg is one of these films.When someone says: "Made-for-TV" movie one would expect characters that are miscast at worst misplaced and numerous mistakes such as modern cars deep in the background, a cheaply made background. But Nuremburg shatters this common stereotype. The characters are 3 dimensional and worth remembering. Alec Baldwin's performance is a commanding and selfless figure...very reassuring almost to sickening levels. Christopher Plummer and Jill Hennessey are very inoffensive supporting cast. They aren't as motionless as the scenery. The most riveting performance aside from Baldwin's is Brain Cox's portrayal of Reichmarshall Hermann Goering is spot-on and very intellectual.The films also gets high marks not only for its moral message about justice and democracy. It gets high marks for one particular scene of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps shown in very explicit and very painful detail. You would actually feel the shock and numbness of the audience. The oral testimony of the survivors also cannot be forgotten as it too explained the Nazi oppression in details just as painful. However, the Nazi officers standing trial remain either unmoved or motionless seeing their crimes from the opposite side of the law. Unfortunately, the accused only show a sliver of their humanity in the face of their ultimate fate: prison time or an execution.Now for the things I felt were lacking in this film, I didn't find that many. I don't hate this film but it's not on the level of the 1962 "Trial At Nuremberg". It should be a full-length silver screen modern adaptation. I didn't like the scenery that was obviously a CGI construct i.e. "the place of justice". There is a lot of emotions in this film like in the big-budget blockbuster. However, it's sanitized, too neat, and *ahem* not controversial enough. I prefer my docudramas with a little controversy albeit a safe dose. In conclusion, this is a wonderful film that is a little too clean and safe given this touchy subject. Nuremberg should be as intriguing as Conspiracy and moving as Schiendler's List. But it's one of the very few movies of 2000's that is my DVD pick and we can't have everything.

Claudio Carvalho 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")

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.

Rick Blaine A rather nondescript cast of celebrities give way to - if anyone - Brian Cox. What reviews one finds of this movie one sees mostly polarity and nothing else. And if anything else, one sees criticism of the movie according to what the (re)viewer expected the movie to be - not what the movie makers intended it to be.From a more impartial POV the movie does do justice to what it sets out to do - namely show that unspeakable crimes of atrocity happen on all sides. The movie is of course in no way a defence of Nazi Germany - if anything (and this might take a bit more historical knowledge) it shows that the issue is extremely deep, perhaps in the way Mississippi Burning asks similar questions.For it is not the scapegoats at the trial who are culpable - it is the entire nation. Rabid ideas were implanted in the minds of children at a very young and extremely impressionable age. You don't know about this? Then ask any educated and enlightened Jew to point you in the right direction. Ample examples of this type of propaganda are archived all over our Internet. See it and not quite believe it.Is this any better for the scapegoats at trial? No of course not. But the movie attempts to show that the atrocities of WWII were not the doing of an exclusive elite but a symptom of a greater, more deeply rooted evil. And that evil exists on all sides and perpetrates even to this day.You cannot go into this movie with prejudices. On the other hand, you can't come out of it with anything less than utter shock and horror at not only what happened but why and how it happened - in other words hopefully with a bit of insight, and so better prepared to do your bit to see things like this stop happening everywhere across our beautiful planet.This is not an easy movie to see. It's not a popcorn movie and it's not a mates movie and it's definitely not a chick flick. But people will need to - will want to - have something a bit more profound to think about from time to time. It can't really hurt - after all, these things really happened and we must continually be on our watch they stop happening.It's hard to see how anyone can come away after these three and one half hours not a better person. A bit bored perhaps - it's tedious at times, perhaps a lot of the time - but important issues are bravely presented here.As movies go - as made for television movies go - it's not going to be a big winner. It doesn't have extraordinary entertainment value. Not much time or effort is devoted to developing characters - only to expounding ideas, to asking questions. Yet there might be no better way to do this one. 6 out of 10. Anyone who's 'human' will do the same.