Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

vince-92204 I only was interested in this film because I read Joseph Persico's "Nuremberg, Infamy on trial". The film was well made for a low budget film however the characters really suck you in, especially Brian Cox as Hermann Goering. Alec Baldwin is at his best as the lead prosecutor, SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson.

Elia Ansaloni I watched "Nuremberg" on Italian TV, where it passed as a one-evening movie instead than a miniseries, so it was cut in order to fit into the timetable. Despite this, it still proved to be good and with a valid cast. It's not easy to bring the enormity of Nuremberg Process into a movie or a series, yet here we have a good example of an history-related production.The scenes are built with attention to details, the narration doesn't become pedant and the screenplay avoid most of the clichés about WW2. Alec Baldwin gives a good work in portraying Robert Jackson in a war fought mainly against Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, wonderfully portrayed by Brian Cox. His charismatic, manipulatory character is the best developed of the series and easily casts a shadow over the other defendants, whose similarity to the real defendants is sometimes astonishing.There are, however, some flaws that need to be pointed out. First of all, Rudolf Hess's characters scarcely has a line to speak, and the same happens to Alfred Rosenberg. Probably it was due to the fact the two actors who portrayed them (LaFortune and Fournier) are French and their accent wouldn't have been fit to the characters, but their impact is still scarce. It would have been interesting to watch scenes about Hess's pretended mental illness or Rosenberg's intellectual arrogance and insignificance finally unmasked. Other defendants are better represented, however: the toffee-nosed Ribbentrop, the cruel Kaltenbrunner, the Admiral... ops, Feldmarschall Keitel, the (probably) guilt-ridden Frank, the coarse Streicher and Funk, and the repented enslaver Speer (even if the overall tone is a bit too indulgent towards the last one).Another insipid part is the soap between Jackson and his secretary/mistress. Fortunately, some scenes were cut in the Italian edition, so I missed them (reading the others' review, it was probably a great deal).In the end, "Nuremberg" is an above average TV production with good sequences and characterization. It handles a controversial historical event professionally and carefully. Cutting away some soapy parts, it wouldn't be bad even as a school projection.*** out of 4 stars

sports2119 I have read a few books on the Nuremberg trials, as well as books on The Third Reich in general. Though the portrayals of the defendants were fairly accurate, they were not given the appropriate amount of air-time.I mean, without the defendants, there wouldn't have been a trial. Here's the top 10 things that should have been added (and especially subtracted from the movie.) 10) Should have emphasized the alliances between the defendants. Speer wasn't the only one to stand up to Goering. Von Schirach, Funk, and Fritzsche were all against Goering.9) Give Defendent #2 Rudolf Hess more that four words.8) Clarifiy why Hess goes crazy at the end.7) Make sure the audience knows that Speer's penitence could be him saving his hide.6) Emphasize that Franks conversion was due to him finding God.5) Talk about the defendants personal lives, try to explain why they would commit these atrocities.4) Tell what happened to the defendants who were acquitted or had their sentences carried out at Spandau.3) They should of had the story include Von Schirach and Von Neurath, the youngest and the oldest defendants, so they would have more of a age perspective to the story.2)All of the Defendants positions should have been named at least once.1) The Jackson/Secretary affair probably took at'least a half an hour out of the mini-series, Which could have been dedicated to, I don't know, making sure the audience at least knows the defendant's's names. Besides, I don't now one person who saw that movie who actually liked the couple.

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