Nuremberg brings Hollywood gloss into the Nuremberg trial, in which the highest-ranking Nazi leaders were brought before an international tribunal to face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. More than the stripped-down realism of recent historical dramas, it taps into 90s and 2000s prestige mode with an indulgent runtime of almost two hours and thirty minutes, courtroom sparring staged with swelling scores, moral stakes underlined by grand dialogue, and actors given big “Oscar clip” exchanges. It will certainly bring to mind A Few Good Men (1992), The Reader (2008), or Steven Spielberg in general, with Amistad (1997), Lincoln (2011), and Bridge of Spies (2015) standing as the closest comparisons. Or, in other words, it is going to be your father’s pick for best film of the year.
The film, which is based on Jack El-Hai’s 2013 non-fiction book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, takes place as World War II is coming to an end. Hitler is dead, and Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), the highest surviving Nazi official and once heir apparent, is captured along with other top leaders of the Third Reich. Instead of a cold execution that could have turned them into martyrs, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon) insists on bringing them to trial. Asked to help is U.S. Lt. Colonel Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek), an army psychiatrist tasked with evaluating the mental state of the Nazi captives. With that, the film builds toward its eventual third-act courtroom drama, though it spends most of the time in conversations between Kelley and Göring as it sets out to examine what really goes on in the mind of someone who commits such acts.
The film is very efficiently constructed, with tactile sets that immerse us in the time, big sweeping music that is rousing when it needs to be but also solemn when required. The best thing about the film, however, are the performances, especially Crowe’s, who gives one of the best turns of his career, at least the best since the early 2000s. He avoids playing Göring as a one-note monster and instead brings subtlety to the role through pauses, looks, and an underlying confidence that makes us believe how his mind works. We truly sense his love for his family and his conviction in his twisted worldview. That he can make Göring human, and thus make us feel something other than utter disgust, is commendable. The rest of the cast also does fine work. Leo Woodall has a touching monologue opposite Malek, and Malek himself brings gray shades to his character, hinting at self-interest beneath his professional veneer. Michael Shannon and Richard E. Grant, reliable as always, add weight to the proceedings.
Everything that happens in the movie is standard, well-shot procedure that never goes truly deep. It all works toward the film’s most impactful moment, one that was not shot for this movie at all: the use of real archival footage from concentration camps. As the tribunal screens the horrors of the Holocaust, we and the characters are forced to confront the scope of the atrocity in ways most films avoid. Seeing not just one camp but a broader record of the devastation hits hard, and it overshadows much of the dramatization around it. That sequence may take away from the rest of the film’s power, but if the movie gives people the chance to experience that history, does it not automatically make it worthwhile?
The film runs too long, and some will take issue with how it dramatizes events with glossy, theatrical staging, but it trusts Crowe to bring the subtlety it needs. The themes it explores are enormous, and even if it dresses them in familiar courtroom dramatics, that accessibility does not diminish their importance.
This is part of Reviews On Reels TIFF 2025 Coverage. Due to the hectic rhythm of a film festival, it may be tweaked in the future.
Still courtesy of TIFF.