The Nuremberg trials, which took place just after World War II, are a fascinating piece of 20^th Century history.  There was a no existing legal standing for surviving war criminals to be put on trial and so four major countries created the International Military Tribunal to ensure those responsible for the Holocaust would face judgement.  Further, it would allow evidence to be made public which highlighted how much was known of the war’s atrocities, including concentration camps, by those atop the Nazi regime.

It’s a worthy subject but sadly, this new film from writer-director James Vanderbilt does little to shed light on events.  He’s drawn from a 2013 novel authored by Jack El-Hai which delves into the trials from the perspective of Douglas Kelley (Malek), a psychiatrist in the U.S. Army who was tasked with assessing the mental state of the incarcerated Nazis to ensure they were fit to stand trial.  The bulk of the interactions we see in the movie are between Kelley and an overweight Hermann Göring (Crowe), the man considered to be second in charge behind Adolf Hitler.

Nuremberg is an unnecessarily long 148 minutes.  As the closing credits started to roll, I’m not sure I’d gleaned much from the two leading characters.  Göring was a heinous person but hey, I knew that anyway.  As for Kelley, the film delves into his professional analysis and asks – were the Nazi leaders pathologically different from the rest of us, or were they just “regular folk” following orders in pursuit of wealth and power?  It’s a meritorious question but the screenplay is scant when it comes to answers.  Does Kelley delivering mail to Göring’s family tell us anything?

Vanderbilt’s approach never gels.  The dialogue is stiff and silly.  Russell Crowe (Gladiator) uses a cliched-German accent, and his over-the-top bravado (“I’m going to escape the hangman’s noose”) makes Göring look like a cheesy action movie villain as opposed to a real-life monster.  Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) is similarly unimpressive.  There are times when his Kelley is a mystic (“you’re walking into a trap”) and other moments when he’s massively out of his depth.  Odd subplots, such as an interlude involving the Pope, serve as a further distraction.

The only salvageable material are the scenes involving Robert H. Jackson (Shannon), a savvy American lawyer who helped create and lead the trials.  He’s not oozing with personality but he’s still the film’s most interesting, nuanced character.  He speaks highly of the “rule of law”, and yet his tactics (getting Kelley to betray his oaths) and ambition (he wants a U.S. Supreme Court seat) show a more calculating nature.  I wish the film had been told from his perspective.

When it comes to the Nuremberg trials, I’d suggest you tweak your curiosity by Googling or reading books.  You’ll garner more knowledge that what this movie has to offer.