Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

adonis98-743-186503 In 1948, an American court in occupied Germany tries four Nazi judges for war crimes. The biggest problem with 'Judgment at Nuremberg' is that it takes completely place inside a court room and as fun as that might sound it really isn't and just picture 'A Few Good Men' inside there for 3 hours now it wouldn't be the epic film that it turned out to be now would it? The acting was alright and so was the cinematography and direction but other than that? It was way long and just needed alot of scenes to cut out like fifty of them maybe even more. (5/10)

HotToastyRag This is a heavy one, so be prepared. If you've seen any similar films, either about Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa, you'll know what to expect, but if you haven't, I'll give you a little background about the plot. Judgement at Nuremberg is a courtroom drama based on the real Nuremberg trials in 1947, where four Germans stand trial for their role in the atrocities of WW2. The plot would have been enough to make this film a famous classic, but in addition to the very heavy and popular subject matter, the all-star cast makes it a must-see for pretty much everyone:Spencer Tracy plays the judge, Burt Lancaster is one of the defendants, Richard Widmark is the prosecutor, Maximilian Schell is the defense attorney, and Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Montgomery Clift, and William Shatner join the courtroom action. Everyone is given powerful monologues to recite. Director Stanley Kramer must have given his actors fantastic direction, because they're all in top form as they cry, argue, judge, defend, and confess. Maximilian Schell took home the Best Actor Oscar in 1962, and the film garnered another nine nominations that year.

gottdeskinos First I was worried about the bumpy start. The first trial scenes show constant translating between English and pseudo-German (most actors are obviously not German native speakers). Thank god this stopped after 15 minutes where they switched all to English. (A weird artistic decision, as subtitles would be much more elegant.)The execution is probably influenced by 12 Angry Men, which came out a few years prior. The movie could have been more focused by centering on fewer characters, also trimming the running time. Performances are outstanding at parts but sometimes heavily overacted. And you have to suspend disbelief sometimes, look beyond fake German accents, which are put on by some actors while others don't even bother.OK, now to the subject matter, which raises hard questions - if you acknowledge that the world is not always black or white. In many aspects the movie feels very like 1961. Later work of Bernhard Schlink ("The Reader"), for example, demonstrates a more distanced, insightful and complex way to judge guilt within such an inhumane, cruel regime. This movie generally speaking aims mostly for emotionalizing. To an audience of the 21st century, this movie, however, has a different effect as to audiences in 1961 (especially with the dawn of the cold war being noticeable). A lot of scenes address that the USA needed Germany against the Soviets, which influenced the judgement and whether the USA should "go easy" on them.One key moment is when the prosecuted former judge admits guilt of himself and his country and acknowledges it as important to move forward. Watching this movie in 20xx A.D., one has to notice, that this admittance of guilt (symbolized by certain characters more than others) is a major part of the narrative of German identity by now and has been for decades and generations. Like the judge had to make a decision from his point of view (after 1945), a today's reviewer has to review from today's perspective. Summing up, the emotional impact this movie aimed for in 1961 is slightly dated by now. (Which is, of course, not to say that the shown filmed evidence of concentration camps is in any way less shocking today.)

Kyle Perez "Judgment at Nuremberg" chronicles one of the most shameful periods in human history, one that some have not only forgotten but even dismissed as ever existing. Thanks to Stanley Kramer and Co. we are presented with a cathartic and engrossing take on the actual trials that took place between 1945 and 1949 that is as memorable as it is enduring. When four Nazi judges are tried for committing crimes against humanity, it is up to Chief Justice Haywood to carefully examine the evidence presented by many to come to a verdict.In one has to be one of the finest courtroom dramas ever filmed, the 3 hour run time really feels like much less and much can be attributed to the tour-de-force direction of Stanley Kramer. His minimalist filmmaking and innovative camera angles almost instantly brings to mind the engrossing camera-work from another treasured courtroom drama in "12 Angry Men", directed masterfully by Sidney Lumet. The camera is so subtle and swift in its movement that it becomes a kind of conscious onlooker of the case – this technique almost eliminates the feel of a screen between us and the film and inexplicably thrusts you right into the court with all of the other attendants. It also keeps your eyes absolutely glued to each nuance and detail that arises in the courtroom.Spencer Tracy gives a fantastically understated performance as Judge Dan Haywood, the morally conflicted and kindhearted judge. Tracy's character is able to appeal to both our ethics and emotions by playing his role with complete conviction and honesty. As the trials progress, we find ourselves wondering how we would operate in his authority – and he makes it clear throughout the film that every decision he makes affects not merely the soldiers on trial, but an entire country and even generations to come. Consider in the concluding trial scenes the way he shows a palpable struggle to declare Lancaster's character (Ernst Janning) guilty, masterfully demonstrating an imbalance between what his head and heart want. Also fantastic in their roles, albeit short-lived, are Judy Garland, Montgomery Clift and William Shatner.Maximilian Schell plays Hans Rolfe, a German defence attorney, who argues that the defendants were not the only ones to assist in, or turn a blind eye to, the crimes. This too is a morally conflicted man (one of many prominent themes in the film) who is determined on preserving the dignity of a nation. And his arguments are centered on the notion that these soldiers were trying to act in the best interest of the country. Schell is compassionate, astute and compelling in his role and makes each time he sets foot on the podium a memorable one. It's also highly entertaining to watch his back-and-forths with Richard Widmark's Colonel Tad Lawson in the courtroom.This film is impeccably written, acted and directed. I am hesitant to use the word 'film' here because a creation of this kind, that tackles this kind of subject matter so perfectly, is so much more than that. It shows how pervasive and damaging an ideology can become in a particular context. It's devastating to imagine these times actually existing and it takes something like "Judgment at Nurembourg" to remind people that they did indeed happen. This is powerful filmmaking at its finest, whose merit far exceeds its mere entertainment value. Masterpiece.