The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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)

"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.

JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG is a tense and provocative courtroom drama, which on a powerful and realistic way shows the nature of a war crimes trial.Four German judges and prosecutors stand accused of crimes against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under the Nazi regime. A military court convened in Nuremberg. A prominent lawyer and scientist has condemned so many people to death. Residents of Germany have, at the moment become blind and deaf to the crimes of the Nazi regime. However, each individual has a different view of the war and killings in the war. Each of the warring forces carries a certain part of the blame...Simple questions give quite confusing answers. Moral and responsibility of important people are faced with interests of their state. Civil servants have to respect inhuman and immoral laws!? Then and now. Nothing's changed. However, some people still have to answer for war crimes.This movie is full of strange contrasts. The main judge is generally a very curious. German defense counsel is an emotional person, who is concerned about the fate of his own people. The prosecutor is a very sharp and theatrical. Witnesses (ordinary people) are scared of both sides. Two words have emerged between curiosity, accusation, defense and emotions - an interest and compromise. There is no room for justice and right in these words. That's the point in this movie.Mr. Kramer has mostly focused on a legal access and political philosophy. Characterization is very good. The horror on the faces of the protagonists is a very disturbing and compelling.Spencer Tracy as Chief Judge Dan Haywood is a curious old judge, who wants to reveal the truth. However, he has realized something else - political logic. Maximilian Schell is a quite convincing as defense counsel Hans Rolfe, but his intentions and his attacks on witnesses are somewhat destructive. Richard Widmark is unscrupulous and decisive as prosecutor Col. Tad Lawson. Policy has cut off his wings at the end.Marlene Dietrich as Frau Bertholt is a sad and sensitive woman. Her character is an interesting view of the German aristocracy after World War II. However, she was closely related to the war and her perspective is truly amazing.Montgomery Clift (Rudolph Peterson) and Judy Garland (Irene Hoffmann-Wallner) are real tragic characters in a malicious court game. They are victims in the true sense of the word.Burt Lancaster (Dr. Ernst Janning) is an unusual serious defendant. His face reflects sympathy with the victims of the war. He is the voice of reason that nobody wants to hear.All actors have offered, more or less, impressive performances.This story is sketchy. Wars are, unfortunately, part of our everyday life. Innocent people are dying trapped between interests and compromises. A trashy trial will not open our eyes.

I just want to make a Special note about Marlene's contribution to this film. Her outspoken bravery and support of the Allies during the 2nd World War are legendary. But here years later, she steps up to the Plate again. To take the role of the Deluded woman in complete denial of the evidence was a remarkable thing for her to do. She later appeared in live concerts in Germany and was met with very mixed reactions. Some even spitting at her and calling her a "Traitor". It was a display of integrity that we have witnessed very rarely in history. I had the privilege of seeing her a dozen years later in concert in London. The visual impression was stunning, she looked absolutely gorgeous to this impressionable young fellow. I think her contributions and her career have been somewhat neglected in recent years. They shouldn't be, she was really one of the most remarkable women in History.