Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

lord woodburry What to do with defeated enemies has been a question all victorious Societies have had to face. The Aztec made the humbled enemy play basketball before executing them. Romans held a big parade in Rome and later Constantanople and ritually strangled the conquered. Occasionally, the vanquished enemy was pardoned and maintained at State expense. In the middle ages, captured Knights were offered for ransom.After World War II, the US wanted to have a trial. "Uncle Joe" Stalin more practically suggested shooting those there was no further use for and keeping the few with some promise. However Stalin bowed to his allies wishes and the Neuremberg Trials began with the Russian Judges' toast 'To Law.' Alec Baldwin rendered a bravura performance as Justice Jackson the US chief prosecutor at Neurember capturing the arrogance, self-righteousness and political intrigue as well as the hubris when he cannot break REichsmarshall Hermann Goering on cross-examination. "All governments fundamentally operate the same," prisoner Goering tells the stunned Jackson.The movie stays from the actual event in giving Jackson the upper hand on a second round of cross-examination and in hanging on to the end. The real life Jackson who some bouts of melancholia during the ups and downs of the trial and who had lost the honor of appointment as US Chief Justice resigned as chief prosecutor long before the verdicts were rendered and returned to Washington.The people of the Neurenberg court were concerned with how history would see them. Will to a future generation this be seen as an attempt to impose law and order on statecraft or will it seem a bizarre form of public entertainment like the basketball game the Aztecs staged?

xandervanvledder I couldn't believe my eyes when I watched Nuremberg yesterday on Dutch television. It starts very slowly, the backgrounds of the Nuremberg trials become clear step by step, the Germans have a funny English accent, but then, suddenly, in the last few minutes of the first part of the series, the audience gets to see the most shocking, horrific footage I have ever seen.It is important that people get to see such footage (although I absolutely don't agree with people stating that there is no minimum age at which children can be exposed to this kind of material), but in this film it was completely ridiculous. It was purely meant to improve the impact of an ordinary TV series. It was meant to shock the audience which is very cheap and unbelievably easy. In stead of trying to move us with well-done scenes, inspiring dialogue or interesting viewpoint's, the audience is being tortured with horrible images of skin-and-bones camp inmates. It doesn't show any respect for the victims of the holocaust.I'm very angry.

Pelle Apparently most viewer knows nothing about the history of Europe, including Germany, Hungary and the whole Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Hitler and Stalin Era. Nuremberg (and a lot of forgotten trials all over Europe) was a revenge and injustice of the winners. What do you think, why were not any American, British, French or Soviet defendants after the WWII? There were no American, British etc. war crimes? There were no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Tokyo, no Dresden, no Hamburg, no Berlin, no Katyn and so on? The Germans had war crimes too, but in Nuremberg the justice was not a real consideration. The main point was: Vae victis! Germany must perish! (That was also a book title in America, 1941.)This film is an awful, ignoble American brainwashing instrument, full of error, lie, propaganda, prejudice and injustice. And first of all: full of hypocrisy. But not surprisingly... Why wasn't enough the Nuremberg process itself? This film is a nightmare. Total darkness after 60 years! This darkness (and hate and narcissism and lack of self-criticism) is the real cause of the massacres in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and so forth. And there are no American war criminals... Bravo, America! Very clever. Even Stalin would become envious of it...

TheManInOil The Nuremberg trials of nazi war criminals are certainly a subject worthy of dramatization. The issues involved are global in significance and consequence. The action may be limited, but the opportunity for drama exists in spades.So how come this movie is so dull and uninspired? How come the most interesting thing they could think of to have the protagonist do is cheat on his wife? How come, in a trial full of larger-than-life characters on the side of justice, this movie presents only Hermann Göring with any color or style? I mean, if Goring is your most compelling character, you're in trouble (even if he's played by the brilliant Brian Cox - this is a film with no shortage of talent involved - Christopher Plummer can certainly hold his own with Cox onscreen, but was given little to do here).I think this could have been an excellent small film if they'd focused on the relationship of the Jewish psychologist assigned to suicide watch for the prisoners, and his interaction with the war criminals. By making Baldwin the centre of attention, they turned the story into a lumbering beast with nothing of interest to add to that small scenario.Ultimately, this movie is worth a watch, if only to remind us of what happened not so long ago. However, I can't escape the feeling that it was made solely as a platform from which to show some footage of death camp victims - which, as gut-wrenching and deeply saddening as it is, is a poor reason to make a film. They bore us for a couple of hours, then hit us with something horrifying and shocking, and the effect of that footage is supposed to compensate us for the lack of drama in the rest of the story. It does not.In future, when filmmakers tackle the holocaust and war crimes trials, I hope they treat the subject with the respect it deserves and make damn sure their movie is interesting enough to warrant our attention for reasons beyond a guilty sense of obligation.4/10