Nuremberg is less interested in moral superiority and more focused on the psychological mindsets of the men at the top of the most evil regime in history.

World War II films are a dime a dozen. It seems like an obligation that the film industry has to release at least one a year. This year’s entry into the canon is Nuremberg, which was written and directed by James Vanderbilt. I was hesitant at first, since a film like this is already aware of its self-importance, but I was delightfully shocked. The name “Nuremberg” was used to draw in the audience, but the trial was only a small aspect of the film. Originally, I found that frustrating as I’m always in the bag for a courtroom drama. Taken as a whole, it was a much more interesting choice to frame the film with the doctor-patient relationship rather than recreate the trials word by word. Nuremberg is less interested in moral superiority and more focused on the psychological mindsets of the men at the top of the most evil regime in history.

Nuremberg tells the story behind the Nuremberg trials. What seemed like the most obvious and important event in history was actually a hard-fought battle to get there. The story is told from two points of view: Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon) and Douglas Kelly (Rami Malek). Jackson was a Supreme Court Justice who, upon hearing that there was talk of having an international trial against the surviving Nazi high command, became immediately interested. There was no international law of that level to charge them on, so the prosecution would be setting a precedent for any future war crimes of that level. He takes a leave of absence from the Supreme Court and meets with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (Richard E. Grant) and Colonel John Amen to begin their strategy for the trial. On the other side, Douglas Kelly is a military psychiatrist who has just been transferred to the prison so he can evaluate the mental stability of the Nazi leadership. He also has a personal stake in it because he plans to use what he learns from his conversations to write a successful book about his experience. Instead, he becomes emotionally enmeshed with Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), who, despite his evil actions, is a smart and charming man. Jackson pleads with Kelly for any information to help them win their case and obliterate the Nazi command because they can’t afford for the Nazis to be seen as martyrs. Kelly hesitates, as he’s struggling with his own cognitive dissonance. Göring has been claiming he will escape the hangman’s noose, and based on his intellect, Kelly knows that Göring has some trick up his sleeve, which he warns Jackson about. The Nuremberg trials weren’t an automatic alley oop, but a battle of wit between some of the greatest minds at the time, evil and good.

With an acting ensemble like this, I imagine nobody is surprised that everybody killed it in their role. Malek’s natural manic energy is well put to use as Douglas Kelly, who is strangely enthusiastic to be evaluating the Nazi high command. Malek often plays intellectuals, and Kelly is no different. He gets cocky whenever he thinks he knows everything, and then swiftly learns that isn’t the case. Michael Shannon as Justice Jackson was excellent, although his temperament was dry as can be, which led to a few humorous moments. If that was Jackson’s actual attitude, then the casting department knocked it out of the park just like with Malek, because that is the Shannon onscreen persona I’m most familiar with. While the trials may be no laughing matter, Shannon’s face was stoic throughout, except for the cross-examination of Göring, where his disgust and frustrations pushed through his icy exterior. Russell Crowe playing Hermann Göring is perfect meta-casting. His inherent status in the industry mirrors Göring’s elite role in the Nazi chain of command, automatically providing gravitas and weight to the performance. He’s great as the brilliant sociopathic Reichmarshall. His performance in the courtroom scenes when he and Shannon volley lines back and forth is fantastic. He’s toeing the line carefully, that is, until Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe stepped up to the stand. Richard E. Grant has the smallest role of the four Oscar-nominated actors in the film, but in his little screen time, he knocks it out of the park. While the previous four actors are the meat and potatoes of the story, he’s the sauce. He’s electrifying, especially when he delivers the final blow to Göring.

In a surprise twist, the most affecting performance came from the actor newest to the industry. For the majority of the film, Leo Woodall is simply Douglas’s translator, only there to facilitate the conversations between him and the Nazi prisoners. He’s sweet and supportive to Douglas, although it’s easy to see his disdain for the Nazis seep through his facial expressions. There is a moment late in the film when Douglas is about to get on a train, and he and Howie talk on a bench. Woodall delivers a several-minute monologue about how personal the Nuremberg trials are for him. He stays mostly restrained until the final moments when he lets the tears flow. Even with all the big names in the film who all perform their roles well, Woodall is the standout. It’s a true testament to his talent.

Nobody was expecting Nuremberg to pass the Bechdel test, but there was an opportunity to have a female point of view that wasn’t explored in the slightest. There were three main female roles. First, there was Elsie (Wrenn Schmidt), Justice Jackson’s secretary. She makes a comment here or there, but she essentially ends up as a person to cut to during the trial. Second was Emmy Göring (Lotte Verbeek), the wife of Hermann Göring, who is essentially used as a pawn between Douglas, Hermann, and the government. Finally, there was Lila (Lydia Peckham), a journalist for the Boston Globe who befriends Douglas, releases key information about Goring’s case, and is chosen to sit in on the executions of the members of the Nazi regime. While it’s understandable that the first two women I identified aren’t major characters, there was a real opportunity to develop Lila’s role in the film. Three points of view of Nuremberg, one from the prosecution, a second from an insider with personal interactions with the prisoners, and a third from the press, would’ve been a great trifecta. Even if her role in the story wasn’t expanded to that level, she should’ve at least had a bigger presence throughout. Instead, Lila is seen more as a potential love interest, disappears from the story, and then comes back as a nuisance due to Douglas’s own actions.

The production and costume designs look solid, as expected, since they recreated real places and clothes that have been documented in detail. Where Vanderbilt could’ve made his mark is with the direction and cinematography, but it ended up just being adequate. The grey-blue tone of the trailer is the exact look as in the film. The neutral look was intended to appear serious and important because the topic is serious and important. Instead, there was an opposite effect. Since there are no memorable shots or images that come to mind, it hindered the story from sticking with me as long as it could have. Being visually appealing doesn’t equate with not taking the story seriously. Darius Wolski is a talented cinematographer. Perhaps with a stronger vision from Vanderbilt, he could’ve produced a more visually dynamic film. These positives and negatives ultimately end up at a net neutral. It is simply fine, but the writing and the performances are the primary reasons to watch.

It must be said that there are moments of Nuremberg that are genuinely funny, and I’m not sure whether that was intentional by Vanderbilt or not. With such stomach-churning topics as the Holocaust and the Nuremberg trials, there’s the thought that any sort of levity should be emphasized so the audience isn’t depressed from start to finish. For example, when Justice Jackson was denied by Congress and the President to pursue the trials, he chose to request a meeting with the next higher power, the Pope. After the Pope turns him down, Jackson reminds the Pope that he signed a treaty with the Nazis to protect Catholics, and not supporting the trials would be a bad look for the Church. While leaving the Vatican, Colonel Amen asks Jackson if he just blackmailed the Pope, to which he then acknowledges that yes, he did. The audience in my theater cracked up, including me. There are other moments throughout that had the same effect. Part of the humor came from how it was edited. The editor, Tom Eagles, is a frequent collaborator with Taika Waititi, who is known primarily as a comedic director. One could easily see how that editing style might’ve slipped into a few cuts of Nuremberg.

What could’ve been a basic recreation of a historical event turned out to be an introspective look at how, under the right conditions, evil can fester below the surface until it’s too late. It emphasizes that there is likely a seedy underbelly to our country as well, without beating the audience over the head with it. Although Nuremberg might’ve lacked cinematic flair, I still stayed locked in throughout the entire two and a half hour runtime thanks to the magnetic performances by all the actors. As 2025’s entry to the honorary World War II film canon, Nuremberg is a worthy submission.

Grade: B+

Oscars Prospects:
Likely: None
Should Be Considered: None

Where to Watch: In Select Theaters