Nuremberg Review: Russell Crowe’s Bold Choice To Play An Infamous Nazi Doesn’t Always Work

by

The Nuremberg Trials were a landmark event of the 20th century. Following World War II, the Allied powers took an unprecedented step by putting the leaders responsible for the war, the Holocaust, and other crimes against humanity on trial. These trials, particularly the first one that convicted top-ranking surviving Nazis, established legal principles still used in international law today. However, the new film Nuremberg, written and directed by James Vanderbilt and starring Russell Crowe as Hermann Göring and Rami Malek as a psychiatrist analyzing the captured Nazi, isn’t expected to break any new ground.

Here are the details for the film: It will be released on November 7, 2025, and is directed and co-written by James Vanderbilt, who adapted the story from a book by Jack El-Hai. The film stars Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Michael Shannon, Richard E. Grant, John Slattery, and Leo Woodall. It’s rated PG-13 for depictions of violence related to the Holocaust, disturbing imagery, suicide, some strong language, and brief references to smoking and drug use. The runtime is 148 minutes.

This nearly three-hour movie has trouble deciding what it wants to be. It tries to be a classic courtroom drama, but also delves into the darker side of human nature and how people rationalize bad behavior. Strangely, it occasionally feels like an adventure film, almost as if it could be an Indiana Jones movie.

The main issue with this work is its tone. It includes many quick jokes and one-liners that don’t fit the serious topic. While it’s okay to portray Nazis as villains in a lighthearted way, like in films such as Indiana Jones, it’s inappropriate when examining the horrific evil they perpetrated during the war, especially concerning the implementation of the Holocaust. These jokes appear frequently throughout the work and were frankly uncomfortable to experience.

The first act of Nuremberg is far too playful.

Okay, so Michael Shannon plays Justice Robert Jackson in this movie, and he was actually the lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. From everything I’ve read, Jackson was a really intense, serious guy who took the whole thing very seriously. But the movie… it portrays him as kind of a wisecracker a lot of the time. It’s just jarring! It makes it hard to buy his more serious moments, and the tonal shift is just…off. Honestly, the snappy dialogue and quick cuts they use feel totally wrong for this story, and it really pulled me out of the movie. It was frustrating, to say the least.

Rami Malek plays Dr. Douglas Kelley, a character who feels like he’s in his own movie. Kelley is primarily interested in promoting himself – he plans to write a book based on his interviews with prominent Nazis, particularly Hermann Göring. But much of the time, he’s simply traveling around post-war Germany, driving recklessly and enjoying the nightlife with attractive journalists. He feels more suited to a lively 1960s war film like The Great Escape or The Dirty Dozen. It’s as if he’s ignoring the surrounding destruction to have a good time in Europe.

Kelley’s constant arguing with the prison commandant, Burton C. Andrus, feels over-the-top, with the two men trading quick, witty remarks. Meanwhile, he clashes seriously with a fellow psychiatrist, Gustave Gilbert. These different interactions show the film struggles to maintain a consistent mood, which can be jarring for the audience.

The second half almost saves the movie.

The movie truly finds its footing in the second act, transforming into the gripping courtroom drama it always had the potential to be. The presentation of footage from the concentration camps finally carries the emotional impact it deserves. The film abandons its earlier attempts at humor and adventure, delivering a stark and unflinching portrayal of the horrors of the Nazi regime and the people who committed them.

The movie truly comes alive when Hermann Göring begins his testimony. Kyle MacLachlan and Mathieu Kassovitz deliver strong performances as the opposing prosecutor and defendant, and while we know the historical outcome, the director skillfully builds suspense as the questioning progresses. Göring initially appears arrogant, mirroring his real-life persona, but his composure quickly crumbles after a single, pivotal question from British prosecutor Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (Richard E. Grant) – a standout moment in the film.

The movie moves from a lighthearted, almost awkward beginning into the serious tone the story always needed. During the last 45 minutes, the audience I was with was completely silent – the humor disappeared, and the weight of the crimes became overwhelming. While many people know the historical events, seeing the actual footage of the concentration camps and the sincere efforts of the prosecutors remains incredibly powerful. Even when Hermann Göring is likable, the film doesn’t let you forget the extent of his wickedness. This consistent seriousness is what the movie needed throughout, not just in the final act.

The end of the film makes the beginning more disappointing

The movie Nuremberg is strongest during the trial scenes, and it’s frustrating that the rest of the film doesn’t maintain that same intensity. While the conversations between Göring and Kelley are interesting, they don’t quite deliver, and ultimately the film feels underwhelming. It doesn’t add any significant new insight to the historical events of the Nuremberg trials.

The film concludes by emphasizing that the Nazis were, fundamentally, people. While representing the absolute worst of humanity, portraying them as somehow other than human risks forgetting how such evil could rise again. Though the film’s message feels a bit heavy-handed at times, it’s a crucial reminder of humanity’s capacity for terrible acts. Ignoring this potential means ignoring history and assuming a safe future. It’s a shame the film didn’t consistently maintain this important idea.

Hermann Göring is a figure who shouldn’t be seen sympathetically, and the film wisely avoids trying to make him likable. However, Crowe manages to find a strange, unsettling humanity within the character. Sadly, the movie as a whole doesn’t treat its subject matter with the seriousness needed to truly make that portrayal impactful.

Read More

2025-11-06 22:43