dolf Hitler is dead. The Nazi High Command is in disarray. And seventy million people across the globe have died – more than in any other human conflict in history. Beginning on May 7, 1945, the last day of the war in Europe, the extensive aftermath is about to unfold. In Austria, Hitler’s second-in-command, Hermann Goering (Russell Crowe), has been arrested, which brings about the ultimate question: “What are they going to do with him?”

Washington, D.C.-based judge Robert H. Jackson (Michael Shannon) is tasked with putting together an international tribunal for a trial against the Nazi leaders. But it’ll be a logistical nightmare – and there’s no legal precedent for it. No one has ever tried war criminals. And what would be the outcome and impact? To kickstart this impossible process is psychiatrist Dr. Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek), who is sent to evaluate the high-value prisoners (including Robert Ley, Karl Doenitz, and Julius Streicher) to determine whether they’re fit to stand trial – and to watch out for potential suicide attempts. “What if we could dissect evil?”

With an initial mix of Hollywood-styled embellishments (such as Kelley flirting with a conspicuously attractive woman), reenactments, and archival footage (or footage made to look archival in nature), “Nuremberg” sets about establishing the basics about what took place directly after the end of World War II – in particular, how influential religious bodies and political organizations strategized and negotiated to get a trial initiated in Nuremberg (the United States Congress simply wanted executions, as did many other governments). And the results cannot be ambiguous; anything less than a total win will be a tremendous loss, denying additional courtroom showdowns beyond the first one, which will be against 22 men. Interestingly, this film’s perspective is from a psychological one, narrowed through a single person, framed as a battle of wits and wills. It even attempts some suspense through manipulation and coercion (and analogies with Kelley’s continual magic tricks).

Yet the Hollywood gloss is, at times, too much. From the ensemble cast of recognizable faces (including Richard E. Grant and Colin Hanks) to the unnecessary minutes of character development and chumminess to the introduction of supporting roles that give curious humanization to the monsters, the production doesn’t always feel as sincere as it ought to. When prison warden Colonel Burton C. Andrus (John Slattery) exclaims “Welcome to Nuremberg!” it’s a downright comical phrase that reminds of Michael Bay’s “The Rock.” Other sections of dialogue are likewise ill-fitting, as are abrupt transitions between prison encounters and carefree shindigs, and a bevy of clandestine meetings – as if conspiring against the Nazis to undermine their defenses is a setup for some over-the-top spy-flick misadventures.

Fortunately, aside from the costume-drama obviousness, there are important history lesson components that cannot be understated. In many ways, “Nuremberg” is more timely now than ever before, as modern politics begin to repeat the inceptions of worldwide catastrophes. Perhaps most startling of all is the realization that the architects of the Holocaust were just regular people – warped and narcissistic, to be sure, but intelligent and rational in the faces of their captors, capable of effortlessly denying the more extreme elements of the exterminations they commanded, or simply justifying them as necessary for the country. And, of course, it’s striking to be reminded that the Nazis’ rise to power was not an overnight event; it was slowly but surely sanctioned and allowed through legal pathways. “All of this started with laws. This war ends in a courtroom.”

Based on the accounts of those who lived through it – and those who didn’t – “Nuremberg” dramatizes an undeniably potent story. Yet the amount of time reserved for non-trial sequences is consequential; the shaky friendship that evolves between Kelley and Goering is far more complex and cinematic than it might have been in real life (if it’s meant to be an accurate depiction from his resulting books, it never feels genuine), and certainly an aspect that didn’t come into play in previous theatrical adaptations, such as “Judgment at Nuremberg.” It does eventually get to the military tribunal – about halfway through its overlong runtime – which poses a gravity that wasn’t previously evident. Images and recordings of the concentration camps, featuring mass graves, body disposal plants, gas chambers, and horrifyingly emaciated survivors is shocking and compelling – and absolutely indispensable to substantiate the atrocities.

Other character conversations continue to interrupt the matter at hand, providing commentary and narrative structuring (alongside dramatic music that swells during judicial face-offs), but they do little to elevate the material. If this latest take on the Nuremberg trials isn’t especially entertaining or enlightening (resorting to cheaper theatrics on occasion, rather than cold, hard facts), at least it’s still noteworthy for its urgent subject matter – so relevant, in fact, that it mustn’t be ignored (never more apparent than with words like “mandate” and the idea of suppression of opposition parties and harsh immigration controls). In the end, the entire ordeal is constructed, essentially, as a clash between a couple of righteous Americans and a cunning Nazi (alternating their duels in the courtroom and the prison cell), having them represent the entirety of their respective regimes – something to make the tale more relatable to audiences, but a chassis that doesn’t always feel sincere and realistic. But the final executions and the notes about how Nazi tendencies lurk within all power-seekers (and how people are so willing to disregard the signs) is timeless. “You have your freedom and I am a prisoner because you won and we lost. Not because you’re morally superior.”

– Mike Massie