Perfect until the end, it have no mistakes.

This is mandatory viewing, especially in the current political climate. The final scene brings it all together, but you cannot jump straight to it - the narrative and the many many fine performances that get you there are all essential. How can good men and women do terrible things? This film anwers that question.

That's cinema! True masterpiece

An all star cast deliverers an indictment on apathy, indifference and gnawing acceptance of their role in the worst of human nature.

Incredibly moving and outstanding portrayal of the complex issue of justice surrounding the people of Germany pertaining to the Holocaust

Spencer Tracy is at the top of his game in this piercing legal thriller that dramatizes one of the most shameful chapters in modern history. Judy Garland is similarly captivating in her small role. Highly recommended.

Kramer's films can be a bit overlong and a bit too obsessed with their own importance. While "Judgment at Nuremberg" suffers from both, neither issue eclipses the film's stronger elements (namely most of the performances, and the writing).

On the one hand, the film is remarkable, great story, great acting. However, being made in 1961, its wider and superbly attempted moral truth is slightly confined by a looming US sensibility about the impending Cold War with Russia. Dr. JD MA(Oxford) MD(Barts)

Excellent movie. My main criticism is that it's apparent which actors were cast bc of popularity or studio pressure - Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland. Both great actors but both out of place here.

"Judgment at Nuremberg" is a classic courtroom drama that has many engaging and well-acted scenes. The movie can be a bit on the talkier side, but it is worth watching. The historic element of the film feels important and the performances feel very real throughout. This is a movie that comes down to the dialogue and I think even though I would say the movie is just good, the screenplay is great. It never really feels like a movie and it shines in the courtroom scenes, whereas the other moments do make the film much longer, it does add to the character depth and motivations. Overall, it is a movie that might seem slow on paper but is engaging to watch because of the dialogue and performances that carry the drama all the way to the end of the film.

Mandatory viewing --- or should be.

Stanley Kramer's Judgment at Nuremberg is a heavy drama that gives audiences a message about the causes and effects of fascism as four German judges and prosecutors stand on trial accused of crimes against humanity for their involvement in atrocities committed under the Nazi regime. Judgment at Nuremberg is a powerful film with powerful music and powerful performances from Maximilian Schell, Judy Garland, and Richard Widmark. The film is full of exuberance.

Stanley Kramer's courtroom drama fictionalizing the The Judges' Trial of 1947 at the titular city at the end of the Second World War debates German collective guilt, wounded national pride and crimes against humanity of the Nazi regime that is made more shocking and poignant with a five-minute montage of concentration camp footage.

Beautifully acted and beautifully shot. You just can't take your eyes off it. Spencer Tracy gave the performance of a lifetime in this, and the way the tension continues to mount through the whole picture, from start to end credits, is fascinating.

Although the script falters here and there, the themes of individual responsibility and collective guilt are always interesting. What truly makes this movie worthwhile, however, is its stellar ensemble cast. Maximilian Schell truly deserved his Best Actor Oscar, and you'll be blown away when Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland and Burt Lancaster take their respective turns on the witness stand. j

Only watched half or so, was bored and had to turn it off.

Maybe the most dramatic part of the film is narrated at the very end when it's revealed that ten years after the trial, no one remained in jail. Pretty aged now and the sound quality is awful.

Judgment at Nuremberg may feel like it is all too aware of its importance at times, and does feel intermittently melodramatic, but remains an important film for posterity, exploring the extent of retribution and compensation for a truly terrible act, where fault lies, and the individual personalities that lie behind it or were caught up in it in different measure. The film's masterstroke is setting up a delicate balance of characters whose backgrounds, perspectives, and guilt (even their own perception of their individual contributions to the war) are left shrouded in doubt - painted as real, but small indiscretions that contributed to a larger event that was only guided by a select few, like a house of cards or a champagne tower - before showing a devastating montage of true atrocities looming over the defendants and their excuses that is simply of a different magnitude, coming to bring it all crashing down in one fell swoop. Tracy's brow-beaten judge feels nuanced and well-realized, and Schell's award-winning take on the patriotic, pragmatic defense counsel is certainly vivid. That said, the slowly rotating camera whenever someone gives one of the film's many Oscar-baiting speeches is a bit much, and the final hour feels rather simplified that calls the film's entire direction in question, putting too explicit a justification for the action of Lancaster's Janning (and by extension, the entire German collaborator class). (3.5/5)

A powerful story well told.

Stanley Kramer's ‘message movies' tend to grate me with their puffed up self-importance, thinly drawn characters and belief that they are saying something novel but of the films he has made this is probably the most successful. This is largely due to the impressive ensemble cast he works with who make their characters appear vivid and full of life even when working with a subpar screenplay. Kramer's direction often gets in the way of the film as his showy camerawork and refusal to cut down certain scenes distract from the fascinating discussion of guilt in relation to war crimes and responsibility to the law. The film does earn it's Best Picture nomination as for a ‘prestige' picture it achieves what it sets out to do. American judge Dan Haywood, Spencer Tracy, is assigned to prosecute Nazi judges who committed war crimes during World War II. The main defendant in the case is respected German judge Ernst Janning, Burt Lancaster, who is represented by Hans Rolfe, Maximilian Schell, who wants to defend the actions of everyday Germans through his defense of Rolfe. Controversial issues are discussed as sterilization and sex between a Jewish man and a gentile woman are brought to light through the characters of Rudolph Peterson, Montgomery Clift, and Irene Hoffmann-Wallner, Judy Garland. Haywood is forced to examine his own morality as he becomes close to wealthy German widow Frau Bertholt, Marlene Dietrich, who claims that the majority of Germans were not aware of the atrocities that occurred under the Nazi regime. When Janning rebels against his lawyer and claims that he is guilty Haywood is pushed to have him imprisoned despite an impassioned plea from Rolfe. There are several points in this film when it feels like a television production for the HISTORY channel and most of these come when Tracy steps away from the courtroom to purchase a hotdog or converse with the charming Ms. Dietrich. I understand that the film, which is based on a play, was trying to expand it's scope and go beyond feeling like a filmed play but these scenes seem utterly superfluous and add to the film's already bloated running time. This is not to say that Dietrich and Tracy are not wonderful together but they feel like they are part of an entirely different film, one that could be quite entertaining on it's own, that is not given enough time to develop on it's own merits. Kramer would have done better to eliminate this plotline entirely and focus on the courtroom drama where the heart of the story lies. Schell won an Academy Award for his portrayal of the morally conflicted Rolfe and he does give an impressive performance, managing to hold his own against legends such as Tracy, Lancaster and Clift. He is full of anger and bluster as many acclaimed performances were at the time but when negotiating with Lancaster he displays a softer side and his final plea to Tracy, asking him to visit Lancaster, is a touching moment. Lancaster brings a unique stoicism to his role as his famously ‘cold' eyes reflect his character's tragic nature but when he does finally deliver one of many dramatic monologues in the film it feels like a cop out. One must accept that there will be big, dramatic, improbable speeches but it did get rather tiring after a couple hours seeing several thespians "Capital A" act their way through ten minutes worth of dialogue. Tracy brings his usual gravitas to the role as we believe in him as an everyman with real concerns over whether he is doing the right thing. Widmark, in the least showy role, is surprisingly effective as his bland good looks and rigidity present him as a good foil for the more bombastic Schell. Clift chews the scenery in his one big scene and Garland fails to convince as Hoffmann, her tics and over the top style overwhelm the scenes. Clift and Garland's characters also seemed rather unnecessary as I would have preferred to have seen only one of them or had both of them cut out. Lancaster and Schell are the most interesting characters in the film and if all of the unnecessary star cameos were removed the film would be a great deal shorter and more impactful.