I only was interested in this film because I read Joseph Persico's "Nuremberg, Infamy on trial". The film was well made for a low budget film however the characters really suck you in, especially Brian Cox as Hermann Goering. Alec Baldwin is at his best as the lead prosecutor, SCOTUS Justice Robert Jackson.

Let's face it, TNT doesn't usually do that great of a job with their original movies. If you think about it, there aren't too many good made for TV movies. Nuremberg is a good made for TV original. The cast is really good, and the cast members look very much like the people they are portraying. I saw a picture that was taken during the Nuremberg trials that looked as though it could have been a shot from the movie. That's how good of a job they did with this movie.Like any other made for TV movies, there are some weak moments, but this movie has plenty of strong moments that make up for the weak ones. One of the scenes that will evoke some emotion in you is a scene where an old film is shown, showing footage taken from the death camps.The length of this movie does get kind of long, but it isn't boring or anything like that. It just requires a comfortable seat. Try to see this on TNT whenever you get a chance, it's worth it.

The Nuremberg trials of nazi war criminals are certainly a subject worthy of dramatization. The issues involved are global in significance and consequence. The action may be limited, but the opportunity for drama exists in spades.So how come this movie is so dull and uninspired? How come the most interesting thing they could think of to have the protagonist do is cheat on his wife? How come, in a trial full of larger-than-life characters on the side of justice, this movie presents only Hermann Göring with any color or style? I mean, if Goring is your most compelling character, you're in trouble (even if he's played by the brilliant Brian Cox - this is a film with no shortage of talent involved - Christopher Plummer can certainly hold his own with Cox onscreen, but was given little to do here).I think this could have been an excellent small film if they'd focused on the relationship of the Jewish psychologist assigned to suicide watch for the prisoners, and his interaction with the war criminals. By making Baldwin the centre of attention, they turned the story into a lumbering beast with nothing of interest to add to that small scenario.Ultimately, this movie is worth a watch, if only to remind us of what happened not so long ago. However, I can't escape the feeling that it was made solely as a platform from which to show some footage of death camp victims - which, as gut-wrenching and deeply saddening as it is, is a poor reason to make a film. They bore us for a couple of hours, then hit us with something horrifying and shocking, and the effect of that footage is supposed to compensate us for the lack of drama in the rest of the story. It does not.In future, when filmmakers tackle the holocaust and war crimes trials, I hope they treat the subject with the respect it deserves and make damn sure their movie is interesting enough to warrant our attention for reasons beyond a guilty sense of obligation.4/10

"Second Nature" is the kind of movie that makes me long for the great motion pictures of the past 50 years. Allow me to be as redundant about this movie. "Second Nature" is a really badly written and badly made movie. I say this with over a thousand motion pictures on my shelf as a collector and "movie buff" for the last 50 years. I know of which I speak. If you have two hours to waste, do some exercises or volunteer to help someone who needs help, but don't waste your two hours including commercials, watching what is a really bad movie. Fortunately, I recorded it and watched it twice to make sure before I wrote this, and then regretted the waste of all that time.Alec Baldwin is a better actor than one who had to do a script like this. He must have made someone very angry in the motion picture business. A line from "Tootsie" is applicable here when Sidney Pollack as Dustin Hoffman's agent says to Hoffman, as Michael Dorsey, "No one will hire you, you're too much trouble,..." Has Alec Baldwin become too much trouble? If not, I can't understand why he's not doing better scripts and making better motion pictures. In the first picture I saw him featured in, "The Hunt For Red October," I saw a very good, new actor. His not making the second Tom Clancy motion picture, "Patriot Games," secured Harrison Ford's position as ‘the' major actor born after 1940. I hope Baldwin was paid well for this abysmal remake of all the so called adventure films made for TV recently. I hope Mr. Baldwin understands I'm not trying to only be critical of him, but would like to see him in good movie or better, good motion picture. I'm awaiting the arrival of "Nuremberg" and hoping it's a better work than "Second Nature." I hope Mr. Baldwin shares this with his present agent.