John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
It's a bit long, but its performances, script, direction, and engrossing narrative make it worth it in this powerful courtroom war drama.
i don't make wagers..
Judgement At Nuremberg
Despite of its overlong runtime, there is a lot of material in it to feed off the audience for more than 3 hours. Abby Mann's adaptation might be the only strongest link in this feature excluding Stanley Kramer; it is a bit loose on depicting the intensity and the emotions behind all the drama and the editing too seems liberal (they could have narrowed it down to around 2 hours). On performance level, it holds up the expectation and delivers without flinching by great actors like Spencer Tracy, Maximilian Schell and Montgomery Clift. Judgement At Nuremberg remains true to its nature and loyal to the tone of the feature till the last frame which possibly is the only reason to encounter this experience for it lacks gripping screenplay, better editing and execution of a scene.
Though long, Judgment At Nuremberg is yet an afflicting drama on politics and the view of the war by Germans in ethics or emotions. Followed by a significant cast even including an unknown breakthrough star Maximillian Schell
Judgment at Nuremberg is a masterclass in acting. There are so many strong performances here that singling out individuals could take paragraphs. I felt for each character and saw their point of view because they were all portrayed as realistic people with genuine motivations. While many of the German characters were played by American actors, I liked how they made the transition to English and just asked you to accept it without a lot of explanation. We get to experience the entire trial through the eyes of Spencer Tracy who is the chief judge presiding over the case. He takes in all the testimony as well as a lot of additional information he gathers from the people around him during the days of the trial. This allows us to walk through these events along with him.
The brilliance of the way Judgment at Nuremberg is structured is the fact that it lays out the case so you can see some validity to the argument of the defense. Its not easy when hes defending Nazis, but Maximilian Schell makes an impassioned plea that can almost sway the audience to mercy at least. They also use this film to show the political state of the world at that time, and the fact that there were legitimate reasons many people wanted these men to be found not guilty. Its a well-crafted film because it does all of this but it also forces the audience to view the horrible realities of the Holocaust. These scenes are awful, and made more uncomfortable because they used real footage of what actually happened in the concentration camps.
I think what surprised me the most about Judgment at Nuremberg was that I never felt the length of the film. Ordinarily movies that are this long start to drag for me, but not this one. It flowed nicely and I never once lost interest. In fact, it strangely felt like they could have done more. This is so fascinating, and the moral questions it raises are so thought-provoking, I just want it investigated further. There was something about the end that felt abrupt and unsatisfying, almost as if the film ran out of gas. Perhaps it was the fact that I knew what the verdict would be since way back when I was in a history class. I anticipated the end, but I still think there could have been a more unique way to wrap things up. That being said, Judgment at Nuremberg is a strong film and it told a story that needed to be told, at just the right time for people to learn from it.
Outstanding film. Star-studded with several fantastic performances. Highly emotional given the subject matter, but presented in a very intelligent, balanced way. I was struck at once by that, and by how well director Stanley Kramer gives us both sides of the argument - and avoids simply paying lip service to the defense of the German judges on trial. Maximilian Schell is brilliant as the defense attorney, well worthy of his Oscar, and is forceful and compelling in his arguments. There are also so many brilliant scenes. Spencer Tracy walking in the empty arena where the Nazi rallies were held, with Kramer focusing on the dais from which Hitler spoke. The testimony of Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland, both of whom are outstanding and should have gotten Oscars. Burt Lancaster in the role of one of the German judges, the one tortured by his complicity, knowing he and others are guilty. The devastating real film clips from the concentration camps, which are still spine tingling despite all we 'know' or have been exposed to. Marlene Dietrich as the German general's wife, haunted but expressing the German viewpoint, one time while people are singing over drinks. Her night stroll with Tracy, as she explains the words to one song, is touching. It just seemed like there was just one powerhouse scene after another, and the film did not seem long at all at three hours. Heck, you've even got Werner Klemperer and William Shatner before they would become Colonel Klink and Captain Kirk! In this film, the acting, the script, and the direction are all brilliant, and in harmony with one another.
As for the trial itself, the defense argument was along these lines: they were judges (and therefore interpreters), not makers of law. They didn't know about the atrocities in the concentration camps. At least one of them saved or helped many by staying in their roles and doing the best they could under the heavy hand of the Third Reich. They were patriots, saw improvement in the country when Hitler took power, but did not know how far he would go. If you were going to convict these judges, you would have to convict many more Germans (and where would it stop?). The Americans themselves practiced Eugenics and killed thousands and thousands of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one small weakness I found was that the defense never makes the simple argument that these judges were forced to do what they did, just as countless others in Germany were, and would have been imprisoned or killed themselves had they not complied. Anyone who's lived under a totalitarian regime may understand, or at least empathize.
I'm not saying I bought into these arguments or that one should be an apologist to Nazis, but the fact that the film presented such a strong defense was thought provoking. How fantastic is it that Spencer Tracy plays his character the way he does - simply pursuing the facts, and in a quiet, thoughtful way. It's the best of humanity. How heartbreaking is Burt Lancaster's character, admitting they knew, admitting their guilt, knowing that what happened was horrible and that they were wrong, and yet seeking Tracy's understanding in that scene in the jail cell at the end - intellectual to intellectual - and being rebuked. Even a single life taken unjustly was wrong. Had the Axis won the war, I don't know which Americans would have been on trial for war crimes for the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or for dropping the atomic bombs, but the film makes one think, even for a war when things were seemingly as black and white as they could ever be. The particulars of this trial were fictionalized, but it's representative of what really occurred, and it transports you into events 70 years ago which seem so unreal today - and yet are so vitally important to understand, and remember.
One of the great courtroom dramas.
A movie that has a lot on its mind, and left me with a lot on my mind.
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).
Não é sempre que me deparo com filmes dotados de conteúdo que requerem alto grau analítico. Em geral, há um certo modismo em retratar plots inteligentes e instigantes como modo de encobrir assuntos já debatidos ao extremo ou formulaicos, cujo sucesso com o público já foi consagrado e testado à esmo.
Nesse aglomerado podemos elencar piadinhas em situações de forte carga dramática ou de suspense, o romance do mocinho, a mensagem moralista, a ênfase na reafirmação de ideias desejadas na sociedade no momento, o popularesco, as saídas fáceis, as mesmas regras de sempre implícitas, etc.
O que acontece quando um diretor opta por um filme de três horas de duração ocorrido quase em sua totalidade dentro de um tribunal? É bem verdade que já houve exemplos históricos de ótimos filmes em "confinamento". 12 Angry Men e O Anjo Exterminador são excelentes exemplos de obras primas do gênero.
Mas o grau de dificuldade em manter um interesse sequencial em uma história desse porte é quase tão atípico quanto a raridade de obras primas do gênero.
Nuremberg é um desses casos. Com atuações bárbaras em uma história fenomenal que adiciona fatos históricos a cada segundo proporciona um enredo complexo, pesado, sem saídas fáceis, sério e reflexivo, típico dos melhores momentos do da história do cinema. Não há aqui um momento de alívio real. A espiral de tensão é como acho que devia ser, crescente e expansiva, com um jogo brutal de mudanças de perspectiva e condução e jogos de câmeras brilhantes, que atuam como testemunhas e parecem oscilar de acordo com a atmosfera mental do filme.
Um dos GRANDES filmes de todos os tempos. O melhor que vi esse ano.
Riveting courtroom drama depicting the Nuremberg Trials held after WWII that put Nazi officials & judges in the dock, and ultimately led to the framing of the Nuremberg Principles that defined war crimes and crimes against humanity.