Nuremberg is a 2025 American, fact-based, historical drama, written and directed by James Vanderbilt, based on The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai. It had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and was released in the UK on 14 November. I finally got around to seeing it yesterday, at the Vue in the Leeds Light.

Nuremberg recounts the story of Reichsmarshall Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), Hitler’s former second-in-command, from his surrender to U.S. forces in May 1945, through to his trial for crimes against humanity (amongst other charges) in October 1946.

These trials were ground-breaking, in that this was the first time anyone had been prosecuted for crimes against humanity and, whilst they were not actually the first ever prosecutions for war crimes, they were the first modern-day prosecutions and were the foundational trials that shaped modern international justice for war crimes.

I visited Nuremberg earlier this year and spent several hours in the ‘Memorium Nuremberg Trials’ museum, so I had actually visited the court room where much of the action takes place. Before going, I had watched Stanley Kramer’s 1961 film Judgment at Nuremberg. So I felt reasonably well informed and was most definitely interested in the subject matter.

The film centres on the relationship between the American army psychiatrist Major Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek) who is summoned to Luxembourg to evaluate the mental health of the twenty-two Nazi leaders under Allied custody who have been selected for prosecution, and Göring, who is one of the twenty-two. Having been pronounced fit to stand trial, they are all flown from Luxembourg to Nuremberg for the trial. The principal prosecutor was US attorney Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon), ably supported by British MP and Barrister Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (Richard E. Grant).

Was the film historically accurate? So far as I can gather, reasonably so. Did the cast do justice to this serious and important subject-matter? Almost. Crowe was remarkably good as Göring, depicting Hitler’s number two with a blend of dignity, charm and total narcissism that worked exceptionally well. Both Jackson and Grant performed their parts well, and with the appropriate level of gravitas. The problem to me was Dr Kelly, both in the writing, perhaps overstating his role and importance in the prosecution process, and in the casting of Malek, who simply seemed wrong for the role, at time his characterisation appearing just plain silly.

However, the investigation into the character of Hermann Göring was absolutely fascinating, as was the importance of the trial, the need to identify and ‘prove’ the presence of evil behind Nazism and to establish the collective responsibility of the Nazi hierarchy. I found those court-room scenes particularly moving.

I do now want to spoil the film for anyone by giving away too much, but I do want to point out that the film includes an extended excerpt from the footage from the camps which was shown to the court, the first time it had been shown in a public forum. This material is very graphic, and I would hope very upsetting, regardless of whether or not you have seen these images before. I have seen reviews which object to the inclusion of this footage; I feel it was vital to grounding the film as a historical document, rather than just a courtroom thriller.

If you are interested in the holocaust (and you should be) then I recommend Nuremberg. It is a fascinating dissection of evil and, specifically, of the character of Hermann Göring.