Magnificent film based on actual events with top-notch performances throughout proceeded by a decent star cast and specially by Baldwin , Cox , Plummer , Sydow , Heyerdahl and Len Cariou as supreme judge who presides over the trials , among others . A stimulating portrayal of the Nuremberg trials in which members of the German authorities were brought to response their crimes in the immediate post-war period .Supreme court Justice , judge Robert H Jackson (Alec Baldwin) is asked to head up the prosecution and he decides to try a representative sample of third Reich leaders , including Hitler's 2º man Hermann Goering (Brian Cox) . The movie initiates with scenes of Núremberg , Germany , 1948 , the destruction of the war is clear everywhere , there Robert is driven through the ruined buildings . The court is formed by three judges to preside the trial against the Nazi chiefs for their complicity in Third Reich . As Robert Jackson in charge of Allied prosecution Nazi war who must resist political pressures and speeches against him , being helped by his assistant Elsie Douglas (Jill Hennessy) . In its opening declaration , the prosecution calls these defendants to account not for violation of due process or other constitutional violations but for killings , tortures , and cruelties committed during WWII . Considers to what extent an individual may be held accountable for actions committed of a superior officer . The accuser statements that the accused cannot claim ignorance that they should have known better for their high position and knowledge . And defenders argue the disobedience to the Fuehrer would have been choice between patriotism and treason for the justices with the subsequent firing squad . Finally the defending councillors explain that not only are the high staff on trial , so are the German people . They claim that the extremists are responsible , not the defendants . They say that very few Germans knew what was going on . Defense lawyers give us the uneasy feeling that the German people never really came to terms with their innocence or guilty . They claimed that the defendants stayed in their positions to keep things from getting worse . One of the more dramatic portions of the film centers around Prosecutor Robert Jackson submitted documents by which the judges and prosecutors had sent thousands to their deaths . A film was shown , a short-documentary is based on real events by means of photographs and stock-footage . As appears work camps are transformed into extermination centers to implement the policy of genocide thought at the Wannsee Conference . At the concentration camps was some minor industrial activity linked to the war effort but the main work was the execution of inmates . Millions of prisoners died in the concentration camps through mistreatment , disease, starvation, and overwork, or were executed as unfit for labor. More than six million Jews died in them, usually in gas chambers, although many were killed in mass shootings and by other means . As the documentary showed a gas chamber at Dachau , but it is a mistake because of it was never used, prisoners died from mistreatment or from execution by means other than gas . The archival footage shows tattooed skin , but Buchenwald prisoners with unusual tattoos were killed , then their skin was preserved for the tattoo collection of convicted war criminal Ilse Koch . This is a graphic and thought-provoking account of the Nuremberg trials in which a group of high-level hierarchy are on trial , being judged in the immediate post-war period ; and subsequently brought to book by Joseph E. Persico , as this picture is based on his novel titled ¨Núremberg : Infamy on trial¨ . This consuming as well as provoking retelling contains some interesting trial scenes that generally work but there's also the needless byplay of a love story between prosecutor attorney Robert/Baldwin and his secretary/Hennessy . Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson is perfectly played by Alec Baldwin , he gives a very good acting for his impassioned portrayal of the accusation against the nasty Nazis . And also superb : Herbert Knaup as Albert Speer , Christopher Heyerdahl as Ernst Kaltenbrunner , Colm Feore as Rudolf Höß , Fournier as Reichsminister Alfred Rosenberg , Cloutier as admiral Karl Dönitz , Frank Moore as Hans Frank , René Gagnon as Reichsminister Arthur Seyß-Inquart , Benoît Girard as Joachim Von Ribbentrop , Dennis St John as Franz Von Papen , LaFortune as Rudolf Hess , Sam Stone as Julius Streicher and , of course , the always chilling Brian Cox . This deeply moving and powerful film was well -but not overly compelling- directed by Yves Simoneau . Rating : Good , better than average .

I'm a graduate student doing my thesis on the Nuremberg Trials and so for the past few months I've been immersed in the transcripts, diaries and all the different interpretations of the Trials. I think that the documentary is actually a very good representation of what happened. The most striking aspect of it was the visual side of things. The locations were perfect, with the reconstruction of a bombed-out Nuremberg as well as the courtroom being absolutely perfect. As well as this, the actors playing the defendants looked remarkably similar to their real life characters and had clearly studied their mannerisms and facial tics. Streicher's excessive chewing, Jodl's upright posture and Hess' craziness were all really well represented- attention to detail was clearly a priority in the casting. I am prepared to put aside minor artistic licenses they took with the plot- not giving the minor characters many lines (although I think they did well to introduce them all at one point). I think they did well to include most of the 'highlights' of the trial (the trial itself was mostly a dull affair, partly due to Jackson's insistence on using documentary evidence, as was touched upon in the film), whilst at the same time staying very faithful to what happened in the courtroom. The differing tales of how they all ended up in the dock (Frank being roughed up by the Soviets, Goering and Speer coming from relative opulence in the American Zone) are well represented, as are some of the challenges concerned with the trial. For me, what carries this performance is both the brilliant cinematography and attention to detail, as well as the performance of Brian Cox and Hermann Goring. He conveyed his personality, from his playful humour to his shocking lack of regret brilliantly and really mastered his character in a way which is very rare to see. Honorable mentions also to Sam Stone (as Streicher), Roc LaFortune (as Hess), Colm Feore (as Rudolf Hoss, whose testimony was brilliantly chilling) and also to Christopher Plummer, who really captured the dry wit and legal mastery of Maxwell-Fyfe.However despite it being mostly excellent, there are a few problems I had with the film: 1) The romantic sup-plot between Jackson and his secretary Elsie Douglas was ridiculous. Not only was it patently unture, it added nothing to the plot. There are so many more interesting avenues that could have been explored within the US prosecution case (eg the fact that many of them were not on speaking terms due to disagreements about the merits of documentary vs witness evidence).2) The film totally overplayed and built up Robert Jackson. In reality, his cross-examination of Goering was seen to have been a total flop. Although he did pick it up by the end, it didn't redeem what was a really poor performance; probably because Jackson was actually a Supreme Court judge and had little experience of it. It was felt to David Maxwell-Fyfe to rescue the prosecution case with one of the best cross-examinations in history, something that wasn't really mentioned in the film. Jackson was well aware he'd made a mess of it and was in an awful mood for the rest of the Trials, frequently quarrelling with the Tribunal. His opening and closing statements were very good though. On a physical level, Jackson was a short, bespetacled man, not an Alec Baldwin type at all!! 3)The film also made the Soviets look like idiots, which really wasn't the case in reality. While the Soviet judge took occasional orders from Moscow (such as the dissenting judgement), during the trial and the London Conference he was actually pretty fair and reasonable. The Soviet prosecutors were also competent and did a good job. And there are some things left out which I think were worthy of inclusion: 1) The case of Karl Doenitz. This was a very interesting case, in which it was established that Doenitz behaved no differently to the American or British admiralties, however still broke the law. This was a very interesting case which raised all kinds of moral issues about 'victor's justice' and would have been interesting to bring up.2) There were actually some fairly humorous elements in what was a fairly slow-moving trial which could have been good to include instead of the romantic strand. An example was the arrival of a Russian government member, who at a meeting with the judges proposed a toast to the 'speedy death of all the defendants'. The judges toasted without hearing the translation and were pretty annoyed afterwards! A fairly cruel joke that could have been quite funny if put on the screen. Also, there was the comic scene of Hess sitting through a hearing on whether he was fit to stand trial or not (after he'd been claiming to have amnesia for weeks). Just as the judge was about to deliver the verdict (and probably call him insane), Hess rose and declared himself sane and says he was putting it on all the time. The court collapsed in laughter with no-one sure what to say. I feel this could have been included, whilst still leaving ambiguity about whether he was putting it on or not.3) I was surprised more wasn't made of the process of actually coming to a judgement. There was some very interesting compromises and trade offs made behind the scenes which could have been worth inclusion. It would certainly have explained the inconsistencies such as Sauckel being sentenced to death, whereas Speer had his life spared. Also, the fact that the Soviet judge dissented from a few of the judgements could have been highlighted.On the whole it was excellent and the most accurate portrayal of Nuremberg I've ever seen, but I can't help thinking with a few tweaks it could have been a true classic.

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.

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...