Nuremberg

Set in the immediate aftermath of World War II in 1945, Nuremberg chronicles the unprecedented Allied initiative to bring the surviving leadership of the Nazi regime to justice. Against the backdrop of a devastated Europe, the Allied powers—led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Chief Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson—establish the International Military Tribunal in the symbolic German city of Nuremberg to pioneer a universal framework of international law, codify "crimes against humanity," and hold high-ranking officials legally accountable rather than executing them summarily.

At the center of this legal apparatus is Dr. Douglas Kelley, an ambitious, confident U.S. Army psychiatrist assigned to evaluate the mental fitness of the captured Nazi leaders and prevent them from committing suicide before trial. Assisted by German-speaking military interpreter Sergeant Howie Triest, Kelley sees the assignment not merely as routine duty, but as a groundbreaking scientific opportunity to dissect the pathology of pure evil.

Kelley soon finds himself locked in a high-stakes psychological duel with Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, Adolf Hitler's charismatic and defiant former second-in-command. As Göring employs magnetic charm and sharp intellect to challenge the legitimacy of the tribunal, Kelley's clinical objectivity begins to fray, pulling him into a perilous game of wits where the line between understanding an adversary and being manipulated dangerously blurs.

The central thesis of Nuremberg is that monstrous atrocities are not committed by mythical demons or clinically insane aberrations, but by rational, calculated humans capable of charming, organizing, and convincing ordinary societies to participate in systematic horror. Drawing heavily on Hannah Arendt's concept of the "banality of evil," the film argues that seeking a distinct "evil gene" or psychiatric abnormality is a comforting illusion that blinds civilization to its own vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it emphasizes the fragility and necessity of the rule of law, demonstrating that true justice requires holding state power accountable under universal legal principles even when vengeance seems faster and more satisfying.

The film can be analyzed through multiple critical frameworks:

The film was developed and released around the 80th anniversary of the 1945–1946 Nuremberg International Military Tribunals. Critics noted that the film was released amid rising global authoritarianism, modern war crimes investigations, and debates surrounding international legal norms, giving the historical dialogue sharp contemporary resonance.

Premiering at TIFF 2025, the film earned generally positive to mixed reviews (standing around 67–70% on Rotten Tomatoes).

Praised Elements:

• Russell Crowe's towering, nuanced performance balancing charm, intellect, and evil without caricature.
• Michael Shannon's intense, commanding presence as Robert H. Jackson.
• Crisp, engaging dialogue, handsome classical production values, and Leo Woodall's understated performance.

Criticisms:

• A tendency toward Hollywood melodrama and rapid, quip-heavy pacing that occasionally undermines historical gravity.
• Rami Malek's stylized acting mannerisms drew mixed reactions compared to Crowe's natural dominance.