Nuremberg is an uneven story with an unclear point of view or point-of-view character. Major players are introduced, then forgotten, and emotional beats barely make an impact because so little time has been devoted to emotionally connecting the audience to its bloated cast. Rather than fully exploring the real-life human drama that took place, the filmmakers muddy the waters with a heavy-handed "anyone could become a Nazi" moral.

That said, Russell Crowe is astoundingly good in Nuremberg. There aren't too many actors working today who could make one of history's greatest villains into a charismatic and nearly sympathetic character, but Crowe manages it with ease, leaving aside that he looks like he's one coconut shrimp away from an angioplasty.

Despite its unfocused storytelling and despite a thesis that feels both obvious and evasive, Nuremberg remains intermittently watchable on the strength of Crowe’s performance alone. More than that, it functions as an incredible history lesson, clearly laying out the legal, moral, and political stakes of the trials in a way that’s informative and often compelling. But a single towering performance and educational value can’t fully compensate for a film unsure of what it wants to say about evil, responsibility, or history itself. In the end, Nuremberg is worth watching for what it teaches and for Crowe’s work, even if it ultimately gestures at profundity without earning it—an important story rendered curiously hollow.