Very well executed

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Stanley Kramer's "Judgment at Nuremberg" is one of the most intense courtroom movies ever. Focusing on the Nazi trials after WWII, it shows how the prosecution sought to remind people that complicity extended to every segment of the population. Indeed, there were people in the courtroom who thought that Germany should forget about what happened and just move on, but the prosecution reminded everyone that forgetting about what happened could lead to a repeat of the atrocities.There is also a scene that is of particular interest to me. The defense attorney (Maximilian Schell in an Academy Award-winning role) notes that it was not only Germany that was responsible for the Nazis' crimes against humanity. There was the Vatican's Reichskonkordat, the Soviet Union's treaty with Germany setting the stage for the latter's invasion of Poland, and there were a number of US corporations supporting Hitler. In other words, many different countries abetted the Nazis actions as much as the German citizens did.This is probably one of the most important movies ever made. It reminds us that justice might not move quickly, but must eventually come. Aside from Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster and Richard Widmark in the top roles, we also have Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift in supporting roles, as well as early appearances of William Shatner and Werner Klemperer.Everyone should see it.

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.

Judgment at Nuremberg centers on a military tribunal convened in Nuremberg, Germany, in which four German judges and prosecutors stand accused of crimes against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under the Nazi regime. Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) is the Chief Trial Judge of a three-judge panel that will hear and decide the case against the defendants. Haywood begins his examination by trying to learn how the defendant Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster) could have sentenced so many people to death. Janning, it is revealed, is a well- educated and internationally respected jurist and legal scholar. Haywood seeks to understand how the German people could have turned blind eyes and deaf ears to the crimes of the Nazi regime. In doing so, he befriends the widow (Marlene Dietrich) of a German general who had been executed by the Allies. He talks with a number of Germans who have different perspectives on the war. Other characters the judge meets are US Army Captain Byers (William Shatner), who is assigned to the American party hearing the cases, and Irene Hoffman (Judy Garland), who is afraid to provide testimony that may bolster the prosecution's case against the judges.

Are you responsible for heinous acts sanctioned by you even when you were "just following orders"? How true is the mantra "My country, right or wrong"? The movie delves deeply into this issues, while touching on topics of justice, race, eugenics, feeble-mindedness (WTF?), forced sterilizations, and other horrors of Nazi Germany. Also, a particularly poignant moment in the movie was the infamous Feldenstein Case, where a German woman was to testify. Just imagine the wrath of neighbors and fellow countrymen that person has to tolerate to contemplate doing this. This is just one nugget, the movie is chock full with these. Performances of Spencer Tracy (Chief Judge Dan Haywood) and Maximilian Schell (Hans Rolfe) were particularly good, the latter netting an Oscar for his stellar work.A classic movie with highly relevant lessons for today on so many issues. Can't recommend it enough.