There’s a notion within film discourse that WWII is too over-saturated as a subject. I disagree. While it’s certainly the case that, of all wars throughout history, it’s received the most attention among filmmakers, it’s simply too massive in scope and importance not revisit. Especially when, as we are witnessing in the geopolitical landscape in 2025, the consequences of fascism are more relevant than ever before. So I was very interested in James Vanderbilt’s Nuremberg, a cinematic re-telling of the international war crimes trial of the Nazi high command in 1945. I was both pleased and disappointed with final result.
Unlike the 2000 mini series of the same name starring Alec Baldwin, 2025’s Nuremberg focuses specifically on the perspective of psychiatrist Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) who psychoanalyses the Nazis on trial to ensure they don’t commit suicide before the trial. His primary objective is to get inside the mind of Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), the highest ranking Nazi under Hitler. Kelley becomes (weirdly?) obsessed with Göring and develops an infatuation with him that goes beyond the confines of his mental health mission parameters.
That dynamic really irked me in the first and second act: the portrayal of Göring was sympathetic. He was painted as charismatic, charming, intelligent, even kind. And that may be true to his real-life demeanor, but in an age where Nazism is resurgent, it felt gross to watch. Thankfully, his full psychological arc is concluded in a satisfactory manner to better ease my moral scruples.
But perhaps a major contributing factor that evoked those emotions of disgust was Russell Crowe’s spectacular performance, proving once again he is one of our greatest actors. Not only did his German accent appear spot-on, but he was charismatic. He was charming. And he was evil to the core. Crowe truly transformed and delivered one of the best performances of his career.
On the flip side, I just don’t get Rami Malek. I like him as an actor and some of his performances (Mr. Robot, Oppenheimer), but his acting style in Nuremberg was so inconsistent, that it was baffling. In one scene he’s effective and compelling, and then the next he’s awkward, unconvincing, and borderline unintentionally funny. It’s like whiplash in performance quality from scene-to-scene. Which does not bode well specifically in the scenes when he’s going to-to-toe with Crowe, whose gravitas completely consumes Malek’s entire presence. All to say that, Malek was terribly miscast for this role and the film would have been great with his absence.
The below-the-line craft in Nuremberg is impressive. The cinematography, production design, costumes, score are all well-executed and are emblematic of a prestige historical drama that should be in the awards conversation, on paper. I’m betting it’ll get a couple nominations for some of the categories mentioned above. And I’m not trying to be a hater, but if Malek’s lead role was put into the hands of a much more capable and commanding actor, I think we’d be hearing more Oscar buzz than we currently are.
The history is fascinating. And gives a peak into the administrative/strategic logistics in coordinating such an unprecedented international trial with the most powerful nations on earth uniting to exercise due process, even for the orchestrators of genocide. There are several moments and exchanges of dialogue, specifically Göring explaining why anyone would find Hitler appealing, that should send shivers down everyone’s spine.
Nuremberg is a good film. It’s an important historical document on the consequences of fascism. It’s just disappointing that it could have been much better with a different lead.
