5 min to read
Nuremberg
How good is the newest movie about WWII?
Review: Watching this was a complete surprise to me as I went to a mystery movie screening at the Regal I typically see movies at, and this ended up being the movie shown. What made this more surprising is that I had never heard of the movie prior to the movie starting, and to my surprise, I ended up enjoying this movie much more than I was initially expecting.
Over the last several years there have been swarms of movies related to the events of WWII, showing the battles directly (Hacksaw Ridge & Saving Private Ryan), showing snippets of the destruction and anxieties of war (Dunkirk), and showing the behind the scenes about how the war could be ended (Oppenheimer). While that is just a small snippet of the movies about this time period, I was initially put off by the idea this movie may be a mirror of some of these other films, having the movie feel repetitive and unoriginal. But, as the title of the movie insinuates, this movie decides to show the story of the aftermath of the war and the attempts of showing swift justice towards the captured Nazi leaders during the Nuremberg trials, the story of which I was completely unaware of. Once I realized that the movie was going to be a new, original film, not a ripoff of other movies, I initially got more interested and invested in what was being shown.
Knowing that the movie was revolving around the Nuremberg trials, the movie does a fantastic job of letting the audience know the importance of the trials. At the time, there had never been an international tribunal that had taken place to judge individuals of war crimes. Because of this, the story starts following Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (played by Michael Shannon) as he is attempting to initiate and start the world’s first international trial with the US, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union against the captured Nazi leaders.
Right after you start to understand the direction of the movie you are finally introduced to the main character of the movie, Doctor Douglas Kelly (played by Rami Malek), a military psychiatrist ordered to maintain the mental wellbeing of the prisoners until they are able to stand trial. Once his character is introduced it immediately caught my attention as to be a great path of telling the overarching story of the film. From one side you have Chief Jackson trying to figure out the best way to go forth with the trial. Since this kind of trial has never taken place before, it was his responsibility to ensure the trial had an outcome and verdict that would be able to define case law for future international incidents. On the other side you see Doctor Kelly talking with the inmates, learning about them, maintaining their mental wellbeing, and trying to understand what really drove the Nazis to do what they did. Having the story take place going back and forth between these individuals allowed us as movie goers to learn how interconnected the stories were and how revolutionary and novel the circumstances of both individuals were. Additionally, with Doctor Kelly you end up learning more about some of these individuals and how nuanced and difficult a trial of this scale could actually be.
I typically love historical movies. I find them to be extremely fascinating, and they are wonderful ways of expressing history visually. I found this to be very true for this specific WWII story. The way they are able to blend and connect what may seem at first like 2 different stories of the same period really made me appreciate the way the movie was directed, written, acted, and executed overall. I don’t think I would have been nearly as invested in this story had I learned more about this in school or read about it in several books. I also found the way the movie was able to add these unique relationships and dynamics between Doctor Kelly and the prisoners, especially Herman Göring (played by Russell Crowe), to be absolutely fascinating.
Despite enjoying the movie, there were parts of it that I found to be a little disappointing, but not necessarily bad. The first of which was the ending. Even if you don’t know the exact story or exact verdict from history class, we can all assume what the results of the trial were, and that wasn’t the issue I had. It had to do with the resolution of what they did with Doctor Kelly’s character. While what they show is true and did happen, I didn’t think it was the best way to try to end the movie, as it takes away a lot of the satisfaction and the overall resolution that the trial verdict gives. The second part of the movie that was a little disappointing was that they never show the defence of the Nazi actors. There are large chunks of the movie where Chief Jackson is actively trying to figure out what the defense lawyers will be saying and pushing the Nazis to do in court, but they never show it on screen. It was a missed opportunity to show a little more “conflict” or more of an uneasiness throughout the trial process. While there are definitely some struggles for the prosecution, the ending verdict could have been absolutely more satisfying if the trial felt more like a battle than a small skirmish.
Overall, I found this to be an absolutely wonderful, insightful, and unique movie. Despite my reservations on this being a clone of other war movies, it does an incredible job at differentiating itself by telling a unique story in a way that is able to captivate all those who are watching. Even despite some of my disappointments in the ending, I’d highly recommend anyone who is a fan of historical movies about WWII to see this.
Rating: 4/5
Comments