Nuremberg is not an easy movie to watch.
It’s a historical drama about one of the most important trials in modern history, but instead of focusing only on what happened inside the courtroom, the movie spends a lot of time looking at the people behind the trial.
At the center of the story are two very different men.
One is an American psychiatrist trying to understand the minds of Nazi war criminals.
The other is Hermann Göring, one of the most powerful surviving members of Hitler’s regime.
And watching these two men go back and forth is what makes the movie interesting.
What Is Nuremberg About?
The movie takes place after the end of World War II.
The Allied powers have captured senior members of the Nazi regime and are preparing to put them on trial for their crimes.
American psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, played by Rami Malek, is assigned to evaluate the prisoners and determine whether they are mentally fit to stand trial.
One prisoner immediately stands out.
Hermann Göring, played by Russell Crowe.
Göring was one of the most powerful figures in Nazi Germany, and even after his capture, he remains confident, intelligent and extremely manipulative.
Kelley believes that if he can understand Göring’s mind, he might be able to understand how someone could participate in such terrible crimes.
That creates the psychological battle at the heart of the movie.
Russell Crowe Is the Best Part
For me, Russell Crowe is the biggest reason to watch Nuremberg.
His performance as Göring is commanding.
He doesn’t play him as a simple monster.
Instead, he gives him charm, confidence and intelligence.
And that’s what makes the character uncomfortable.
Göring knows how to talk.
He knows how to manipulate people.
He knows how to control a conversation.
Even while sitting in captivity, he still behaves like someone who believes he has power.
Several critics singled out Crowe’s performance as one of the movie’s major strengths. Time Out called him a standout, while Rotten Tomatoes’ critics consensus also highlights his performance.
I agree.
Whenever Crowe is on screen, the movie becomes more interesting.
Rami Malek Takes a Different Approach
Rami Malek plays Douglas Kelley as an ambitious and curious psychiatrist.
Kelley isn’t simply trying to make sure the prisoners are fit for trial.
He is fascinated by them.
He wants to understand them.
And there is also a personal ambition behind his work.
He believes that understanding people like Göring could help him understand evil itself.
That creates an interesting problem.
How close can you get to someone like Göring before you start becoming fascinated by him?
The movie uses that relationship to create much of its tension.
The Psychological Battle Is Better Than the Courtroom Scenes
One thing I noticed while watching Nuremberg is that the conversations between Kelley and Göring are often more interesting than the actual courtroom material.
The two men are constantly trying to figure each other out.
Kelley asks questions.
Göring answers them sometimes honestly, sometimes deceptively.
Then Göring turns the questions back on Kelley.
It’s almost like a chess game.
Neither man completely trusts the other.
And that makes their scenes unpredictable.
The Movie Deals With a Very Important Question
One of the biggest questions in the movie is whether evil can actually be understood.
Can someone commit terrible crimes because of mental illness?
Or can a completely rational person simply decide to do something evil?
Kelley wants answers.
He wants to know whether the Nazi leaders were somehow fundamentally different from ordinary people.
But the movie gradually suggests that there may not be an easy answer.
That is one of the strongest ideas in the film.
The Real Historical Footage Is Difficult to Watch
There are moments when Nuremberg uses real footage from the concentration camps.
These scenes are extremely disturbing.
And they should be.
The movie doesn’t allow the audience to completely forget what the trial was actually about.
The fictionalized courtroom drama can sometimes feel like a traditional Hollywood movie, but the real footage brings the horrifying reality back into focus. The Guardian specifically noted how the authentic footage contrasts with the more polished dramatic sections of the film.
For me, those moments were important.
They remind you that this isn’t simply a story about two interesting characters having clever conversations.
Millions of people were murdered.
The trial was about accountability for those crimes.
The Movie Looks Great
The production design is another strong point.
The movie recreates post-war Germany with a serious, old-fashioned historical-drama style.
The costumes, locations and courtroom settings make the period feel believable.
It has the look of a big historical production without becoming overly flashy.
And I think that’s the right approach for this story.
The subject matter doesn’t need unnecessary visual effects.
The people and the conversations are enough.
Where Nuremberg Struggles
My biggest problem with the movie is the pacing.
At nearly two and a half hours, Nuremberg is a long movie.
There are sections where it moves very well.
But there are also moments where the story slows down too much.
Some critics had a similar reaction. Rotten Tomatoes’ overall consensus praises Crowe but points to the film’s measured pacing and emotional restraint as weaknesses.
I didn’t hate the slower sections, but I definitely felt the length.
A shorter runtime could have made the movie feel more focused.
The Movie Can Feel Too Hollywood
This is probably my second major criticism.
The subject is incredibly serious, but sometimes the movie feels like a conventional Hollywood courtroom thriller.
The characters deliver dramatic speeches.
The conversations are polished.
The tension is carefully constructed.
And while that makes the movie entertaining, it can also make the historical events feel slightly too neat.
The Guardian had a similar criticism, arguing that the movie sometimes turns the trials into familiar courtroom-drama territory rather than fully capturing their historical weight.
I understand why the filmmakers made that choice.
They wanted to make a movie people would actually watch.
But I think there were moments when the historical reality should have been allowed to speak for itself.
Is Nuremberg Worth Watching?
Yes.
I think Nuremberg is worth watching, especially if you enjoy historical dramas based on real events.
The movie isn’t perfect.
It’s long.
It’s sometimes overly polished.
And some of the dialogue feels more like Hollywood writing than natural conversation.
But the central performances make up for a lot of that.
Russell Crowe is excellent.
Michael Shannon is also strong as chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson.
And the story itself is important.
The Nuremberg Trials helped establish major principles around prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, making the events depicted here much bigger than a normal courtroom story.
My Rating for Nuremberg
For me, Nuremberg gets an 8/10.
The performances are strong, the subject matter is important, and the psychological battle between Göring and Kelley gives the movie something more than a standard historical drama.
My main complaints are the long runtime and the occasional feeling that the movie is trying too hard to turn an incredibly serious historical event into a conventional Hollywood thriller.
But overall, I enjoyed it.
Nuremberg is a powerful reminder that justice after a war is not simple.
The people on trial were responsible for unimaginable crimes.
But the people judging them also had to decide what justice should look like.
And that is what makes the story still worth watching today.
James
