Nowhere Close to the 1961 Masterpiece, But At Least an Attempt to Discover Something New

RATING – ⭐ ⭐ ✨ 2.5/5*

Nuremberg Review movie Talkies:

Stanley Kramer made many good films in his career, but Judgment at Nuremberg easily surpasses them all and remains one of my most cherished films of the 1960s. While Hollywood at the time was basking in colorful romantic comedies and anti-war dramas, this black-and-white courtroom tale about the aftermath of Nazi atrocities made all those films look colorless. Reimagining or rediscovering this monumental Story six decades later was never going to be easy, nor was it ever possible to match the cinematic legacy of Kramer’s masterpiece. Yet, I appreciate that the filmmakers at least tried to explore something new — a psychological perspective rather than a legal one. The 2025 version of Nuremberg unfolds not in the courtroom but inside the mind of a psychiatrist. The film is told largely from the perspective of Dr. Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek), a chief psychiatrist assigned to assess the mental state of Nazi officials before their trials. This shift in focus leaves less room for the kind of gripping courtroom exchanges that defined the 1961 original — a decision that ultimately weakens the film’s dramatic punch. However, despite its uneven storytelling, Nuremberg offers a few shocking and powerful moments that deserve acknowledgment.

Nuremberg Story: 

The Story begins ahead of the historic trials, as Dr. Kelley arrives at the prison to evaluate whether the Nazi war criminals are fit to stand trial. Among them is Hermann Göring played by Russell Crowe, in one of his most commanding late-career performances. Douglas, sharp and analytical, quickly finds himself drawn into a psychological chess match with Göring, who manipulates conversations with unsettling ease. What starts as a routine evaluation soon turns into a dangerous intellectual duel. The more Douglas studies Göring, the more he realizes that this man, despite being a monster, is incredibly intelligent — perhaps even one step ahead of him. Göring’s every word, every smile, and every calculated silence reveal that he has meticulously planned his defense, right from his surrender to the courtroom proceedings. Douglas’ challenge, then, is to find a way to outsmart him and ensure that justice prevails — ideally with the death penalty that Göring so richly deserves.

As mentioned earlier, this version of Nuremberg focuses more on the psychological warfare between doctor and prisoner than on the moral and legal debates that defined the original. The 1961 film remains one of the greatest courtroom dramas ever made, known for its striking cinematography, powerful dialogues, and moral gravity. In contrast, this new film seems visually flat and emotionally uneven. The courtroom scenes lack tension, the debates feel half-hearted, and the production doesn’t even attempt to recreate the haunting grandeur of Kramer’s vision.

FACT CHECK: Deepika Padukone’s Name NOT REMOVED from Kalki 2898 AD End Credits –

Yet, one sequence stands out above all — the concentration camp footage. The moment those images appear on screen, the audience, much like the characters within the film, is left speechless. The horror, the inhumanity, and the raw documentation of suffering cut through the mediocrity of the rest of the film. That brief sequence alone carries the emotional weight that much of the film fails to sustain. Unfortunately, once that moment passes, the narrative returns to its middling rhythm. The confrontations between Hermann and Douglas, the prosecution’s strategies, and the courtroom exchanges all lack the emotional depth and sense of urgency that the subject matter demands.

Nuremberg Cast:

Still, the performances elevate the film considerably. Russell Crowe once again proves that he doesn’t need elaborate direction or flashy writing to command attention. His portrayal of Göring is layered, frightening, and yet disturbingly charismatic. The German accent, the smug composure, and the subtle psychological manipulation — all are delivered with Crowe’s signature intensity. Meanwhile, Rami Malek delivers a performance that often rivals, and occasionally surpasses, Crowe’s. As Dr. Douglas Kelley, he portrays curiosity, moral confusion, and internal conflict with admirable restraint. I have admired Malek since Bohemian Rhapsody, and this role reinforces his range and maturity as an actor. The supporting cast — including Leo Woodall, John Slattery, Colin Hanks, Mark O’Brien, Wrenn Schmidt, Lydia Peckham, Michael Shannon, and Richard E. Grant — contributes solid performances that round out the ensemble. 

SHOCKING: Shirdi Ke Saibaba Actor Sudhir Dalvi Hospitalized; Family Appeals For Financial Help of 15 Lakhs for Treatment –

Where the film falters most is in its technical execution. The cinematography is disappointingly ordinary — a serious letdown given the historical depth and emotional potential of the subject. The editing feels inconsistent and doesn’t build tension effectively. The art direction, though passable, never immerses the viewer in post-war Germany. Even the background score feels muted, rarely enhancing the mood or atmosphere. The opening shot — a man urinating on a Nazi emblem — hints at a provocative tone, but that audacity vanishes soon after. Director James Vanderbilt keeps the Story grounded in realism and authenticity, but his approach lacks cinematic fire. The pacing drags, and the tone remains too subdued for a Story of such moral and historical magnitude. What’s missing here is the courage to confront the darkness with full force. Kramer’s Judgment at Nuremberg didn’t just depict history — it made viewers feel its moral anguish. This new Nuremberg merely observes it. It’s a psychological study that forgets to engage the heart. The film had the potential to be sharper, more brutal, and more introspective, but it settles for being “watchable” rather than unforgettable. And yet, for all its flaws, Nuremberg isn’t a total misfire. It deserves credit for revisiting a crucial chapter of history and for attempting to interpret it through a fresh lens. Some scenes — especially those involving the camp footage and the verbal duels between Malek and Crowe — linger long after the credits roll. They remind us that beneath the film’s surface lies the echo of something powerful, something that could have been extraordinary with a stronger vision.

Nuremberg movie Review:

In short, Nuremberg is a noble effort that falls short of greatness. It neither dishonors the original nor comes close to matching its brilliance. What it offers instead is a modern, psychologically inclined take on the same Story — flawed but fascinating in moments. For history enthusiasts and fans of the actors involved, it’s worth a viewing. But for those who have witnessed the timeless impact of the 1961 masterpiece, this new chapter will likely feel like an echo — faint, uneven, and yearning for the gravitas of its predecessor.

Stay tuned to movie Talkies’ website and social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), along with our YouTube channel, for the latest updates, breaking news, box office reports, movie reviews, celebrity spotting, and interviews from Bollywood, television, OTT, Hollywood, and regional cinema, including South Indian films.