You’d be forgiven if you expected “Nuremberg” to be a dramatic recreation of the famous Nuremberg trials. To be clear, it is partially a historical drama recreating the Nazi war crimes trial that became the foundation of international law, but that’s only the backdrop for the film’s true story. That’s because “Nuremberg” is actually an adaptation of a book.
“The Nazi and the Psychiatrist” came out in 2013, and it tells the story of the relationship between U.S. Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley and his most infamous patient: Hermann Göring, Reichsmarschall of Nazi Germany and the de facto leader of the nation following Adolf Hitler’s suicide. During the war crimes trial, Kelley was tasked with examining the Nazi leaders on trial and ensuring they stayed healthy enough mentally and physically to take the stand.
For the most part, the movie sticks to this central plotline, painting a complex portrait of both Kelley and, perhaps surprisingly, Göring. To do this, director James Vanderbilt calls on the skills of a pair of Oscar winners: Rami Malek as Dr. Kelley, and Russell Crowe as the infamous German leader.
You may like
Malcolm McMillan
Streaming Editor
Malcolm has been with Tom’s Guide since 2022, and has been covering the latest in streaming news, shows and movies since 2023.
(Image credit: Future)
Potential spoilers for “Nuremberg” ahead
‘Nuremberg’ glosses over much of history to let Malek and Crowe shine
Malek and Crowe’s performances are, by far, the most successful thing about “Nuremberg” and the main attraction for seeing this movie, which should eventually make its way to Netflix if you don’t wish to see it in theaters.
For the record, it’s not a film that demands a theatrical screening. The movie’s cinematography is not breathtaking, and its sound design doesn’t merit anything more than a home theater setup. “Nuremberg” is, fittingly, essentially a series of scenes of men talking in rooms, and it’s the performances of those men that this film lives and dies on.
Crowe is, unequivocally, excellent in this film. His portrayal of Göring is transformative, although he still very much looks like Russell Crowe. The Australian actor manages to portray a complex, even at times sympathetic figure, while still ultimately proving to be the monster he’s accused of being. It’s done without being overly dramatic as well; even in the most tense encounters, he’s relatively measured and even-toned, save for one argument with Kelley where his emotions can’t help but show.
(Image credit: Scott Garfield/Sony Pictures Classics)
Malek’s portrayal is a much more emotional, even wild, portrayal. He starts as arrogant and overconfident, until the atrocities of Göring and the Nazi Reich are laid before him, utterly shattering him.
In this sense, he serves as the audience surrogate in the film. He, like the viewer, can’t help but be drawn in a bit by Crowe’s Göring, even though we know going into the interaction that the Nazi leader is one of the most monstrous men ever to grace the Earth. When that realization is hammered home during the trials, he, too, feels the rage we feel seeing the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps, though only he gets the catharsis of taking out his rage on the Nazi commander.
Ironically, it’s perhaps Richard E. Grant as David Fyfe who gets to deliver the movie’s best moment, rather than our main storyline’s two leads. Admittedly, those who know the history of the Nuremberg trials won’t be shocked to learn that the Scottish solicitor gets to deliver the climactic speech of the trials, but it feels almost as if it’s in a different movie.
You may like
To be fair, it sort of is in a different movie. Alongside Kelley and Göring’s game of cat-and-mouse, there’s an entirely separate storyline about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson’s (Michael Shannon) attempt to put the Nazis on trial and to score a conviction. The two stories manage to tie in at the end, but they’re largely separate.
Unfortunately, either not enough attention is given to this storyline, or perhaps too much attention is given. The film switches back and forth between the two plotlines, but only Kelley and Göring feel fully explored. The rest of the Nuremberg trials feel almost as if they were an afterthought, even though Shannon inarguably plays a starring role as Jackson.
That’s the real crime of this movie. While it manages to ultimately show the crimes of the Nazis in stunning detail, at least for a moment, it largely glosses over the nuances of the trial itself. The involvement of the Russians and French is mentioned, but never shown, and the intricacies of these nations trying to appropriately charge the Nazis with war crimes while not opening themselves up for the same accusations are only briefly addressed.
So yes, “Nuremberg” is a passable historical drama, with some performances and moments that rise to the occasion. But it’s largely forgettable, and that feels like a grave sin for a movie tasked with retelling perhaps the most important trial in history.
(Image credit: Future)
Follow Tom’s Guide on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!
More from Tom’s Guide
Streaming service deals not to miss
Follow Tom’s Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
