User reviews

I'm sure we'll see another version of Inherit The Wind with some of the players of a new generation. This story about religion being written into the civil law is sadly not out of style.

When the first version that starred Spencer Tracy and Fredric March came out it was heralded as the Broadway play it was based on. But in 1960 it was looked on as look back to another era where we presumably learned of the folly of imposing religious views on the body politic. I don't think anyone thought that the religious right would reawaken and become the force it has. Not in 1999 when this film came out or when another version that starred Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards, Jr. was made in 1988. All three versions have a chilling timeliness about them now.

Tom Everett Scott is the high school biology teacher who violates a newly passed law making the teaching of Charles Darwin's The Origin Of The Species a crime. He's the first charged under this new Tennessee statute and three times presidential candidate Matthew Harrison Brady modeled on William Jennings Bryan volunteers to be on the prosecution team.

Of course that generates a lot of publicity and Henry Drummond based on Clarence Darrow is brought in to defend.

In the original film Fredric March really got the Bryan character down pat. But George C. Scott is a fascinating Matthew Harrison Brady. Certainly the most fanatical of the group. Then again few actors could get as intense as George C. Scott.

Jack Lemmon is a more relaxed and low key Henry Drummond. He was not in real life as noble a character as Spencer Tracy played him in 1960. Jason Robards, Jr. in the 1988 film was the closest to the real Clarence Darrow. But closer than Robards is Orson Welles as Jonathan Wilk from the 1959 film Compulsion based on the Leopold/Loeb murder case.

Of course the highlight in the film and the real trial itself is the confrontation when Drummond(Darrow) calls Brady(Bryan) as an expert witness on the Bible. Then as now how willfully ignorant Lemmon shows Scott to be. Not just ignorant but determinedly so and determined to keep all views but his own out of our educational system.

I can hardly wait for this oft told tale to be told again. Till then this and the other version are to be seen and seen again.

This version of the Scopes Trial is better than the first TV version for several reasons, the first is that its a reasonable running time. Next it doesn't have breaks for commercials, this was done for cable and not commercial TV. Lastly this has the performances of Lemon and Scott who come damn close to equaling Tracy and March in the first version of this.

George C Scott was to star on Broadway in a revival of this play a year or two before he made this film. Illness prevented him appearing in most of the run, but based on this performance seeing it live must have been electric. There are several small moments, one near the end of the film in particular where his mastery of acting shine through. In that final moment, the weight of the battle and its implications loom large, sitting on his bed with his wife he begins to break down in ways that are touching and heart breaking.

Lemmon is his equal and he easily makes this one for the ages as he spars with Scott about what is and is not history and sacred.

This is a great TV movie which only has as its flaw the fact that its not the original.

The original version of 'Inherit the Wind' teamed two acting heavyweights, Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond, and Fredric March as Matthew Harrison Brady. It was a fabulous film and boasted an intelligent script.

Now this script has come to television (for the second remake), and boasts two top actors who came to prominence in the 1950s - Jack Lemmon as Henry Drummond, and George C Scott as Matthew Harrison Brady. Both inhabit their characters perfectly, and it is always a joy to see two old-timers sparring on the screen when their styles gel so well.

Both looking old and tired (Scott died shortly after completing this, Lemmon in 2001), their battle in court has a different kind of emphasis than the original, where the leads appeared in better health and were that bit younger. However, even at the end of their careers, Scott and Lemmon are really excellent, and Beau Bridges is also memorable in a role first played by dancer-turned-actor Gene Kelly, while Piper Laurie provides good support.

TV remakes are often redundant but this one passes the quality test and is well worth a look, especially if you are a fan of either of the leads. It's also an interesting complement to the remake of Twelve Angry Men in which they both appeared a couple of years earlier.

The Showtime cable channel has scored another success here. Recently Showtime gave us Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott in a remake of 12 ANGRY MEN, and now we have these two excellent actors in the remake of INHERIT THE WIND.

The fictionalized retelling of the famous "Monkey Trial" is an interesting study in what is still with us -- the struggle between literal interpretation of the Bible and secular science. The point that INHERIT THE WIND makes is that there may be no contradiction between science and religion -- but that by looking at the letter and not the spirit of religion, we create divisions for ourselves and will eventually inherit the wind. In other words, we will inherit nothing but talk.

The cast is excellent. This is a worthy successor to the powerful 1960 film.

This film is a remake of a 1960 movie about the 'Scopes' monkey trial in July of 1925, argued by prominent statesman William Jennings Bryan (for the prosecution and the Bible) and equally the prominent Clarence Darrow (for the defense, scientific thought and Darwin). Rather than compare it with the original, which I understand was brilliant, I will evaluate it on its own.

This is a powerful and thought provoking courtroom drama about a school teacher who was arrested for teaching evolution, then considered a heresy against God and the bible. The topic is unfortunately as timely today as it was 75 years ago. The film is extremely effective at illustrating the pervasive ignorance and fear so prevalent in fundamentalist religions. It depicts with great clarity, the frenzied and irrational efforts undertaken to suppress any knowledge that threatens to debunk the myth and simple minded traditions that bind the faithful together.

Unfortunately, the presentation of the story had certain flaws that kept it from being a truly great film. My biggest objections are all directorial. First, this film was visually mediocre and pedestrian. The camera basically followed the speaker around the room at the same angles from pretty much the same distances. There were very few reaction shots which would have greatly enhanced the drama. I don't think there was a single reaction shot of any member of the jury and only a couple from the gallery.

Director Daniel Petrie takes enormous artistic license in presenting the trial. The way it was portrayed it seemed more like an unmoderated debate between the lawyers than a criminal trial with rules of court. Granted, it was a small town in 1925, but this was ridiculous. In real trials, lawyers have two opportunities to give speeches in a trial, in opening and closing statements. During the trial itself, they are only to ask questions and gather evidence under very strict rules. They can't give speeches or lead the witness or inject their opinion about a witness' testimony. This was flouted in the film as lawyers violated these rules repeatedly with nary an objection from the other side. Ironically, the most important speeches of the trial, closing arguments were completely missing from the film.

I found Jack Lemon's portrayal of defense lawyer Henry Drummond to be disturbingly restrained. Lemon is clearly capable of unfettered rage and indignation, yet he played his character with resignation and defeatism rather than frustration and wrath. He simply didn't fight hard enough for the principles in which he supposedly believed. I blame this on Petrie.

Without question, the performance of the film belonged to George C. Scott in his last performance before his death (a stunning coincidence since William Jennings Bryan, on whom Scott's character is based, died shortly after this trial. So it was his last performance as well). Scott is magnificent as the bible thumping prosecutor rattling the rafters of the little courthouse with his booming gravel voice. This was the type of part Scott was born to play and it may have been his best performance since Patton. For this reason alone this film should be on every film buff's list. If only Lemon brought similar fire to his part, this film would have been riveting.

Beau Bridges was a bit overly obnoxious as the sardonic reporter E.K. Hornbeck. The role called for a good deal of cynicism, but Bridges got carried away.

Lane Smith gives a terrific performance as the Lord possessed Reverend Brown, who damns his own daughter to hell for refusing to renounce her love for her fiance Cates, the accused school teacher. His sermon at the prayer meeting was more than worthy of any cable TV evangelist.

I gave this film a 7/10. I think it would be rated higher by most people who think of a courtroom as more of a dramatic setting than place of justice. Overall it is a credible update of a topic that should remain in the forefront of our minds if we hope to continue living in a free and rational society.

The movie epitomizes what civilized debate can and should be. There are scintillating performances from Lemmon and Scott, and some very quotable lines as well. The courtroom atmosphere is well created and tension is never allowed to slack. Perhaps the most eloquent testimony paid on screen from a protagonist to his antagonist comes in the closing scenes. Although it is supposed to be based on the Scopes Monkey Trial, the closing credits state that the movie is a work of fiction. The movie raises many questions about the longstanding impasse between religion and science, between faith and reason. In a strange way, it does not conclusively resolve these issues but rather allows the viewer to decide for herself or himself. It will echo in your mind long after you have viewed it. Heartily recommended.

Showtime does an adaptation of the famous play which was inspired by the 1925 case. In the small southern town of Hillsboro, school teacher Bertram Cates (Tom Everett Scott) is arrested for teaching evolution. The case pits longtime friends Henry Drummond (Jack Lemmon) and Matthew Harrison Brady (George C. Scott) against each other. Cates' girlfriend Rachel Brown (Kathryn Morris) is pitted against her father Reverend Jeremiah Brown (Lane Smith).

These are great actors. The veterans are putting their full selves into these classic roles. There are still aspects that I would change. I don't like the laughing. I don't want to change the play but the laughing saps out the seriousness of Brady's breakdown. I know he later says that they were laughing at him. They could cut out that line. I don't want celebration. I don't want laughter. I want shocked silence.

It would be hard to botch "Inherit the Wind," especially with this cast. Lemmon is not as great as Spencer Tracy in the original movie-- but then who would be? However, George Scott Scott far surpasses Frederick March. Scott is the best Brady I have seen in numerous versions of the play/movie, and the ONLY one who managed to make Brady a sympathetic character and not merely a buffoon. Wonderful, too-frequently-seen Piper Laurie makes a great deal of the relatively thankless role of Mrs. Brady. What a terrible waste that Hollywood didn't know what to do with her. After "Until They Sail," especially "The Hustler," and various other roles leading and supporting, she should have been a major star. One can only hope that she chose to pursue a private life rather than a career.

In the political climate of today--2005--"Inherit the Wind" has a great deal to say. Is anyone listening?

I couldn't believe it when I saw the cast list. I'd seen the 1960 version and I counted myself lucky to watch another interpretation. Unfortunately, I saw the 1960 interpretation, and even through it's inaccuracies, and anachronisms, it taught lessons that lasted throughout my life. It really doesn't matter. The message is the same in both movies because Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan made it important.

Great play done fairly well by all involved but after seeing the Spencer Tracy version not long before seeing this version, it lacks the character and energy of the Tracy version.

Still a great story about taking beliefs to extremes and not being open minded in the face of new facts. Back then, the religious right was not very tolerant. Today it has flipped and now it is the liberal left that 'knows everything' and refuses to listen to reason.

The pendulum swings. I just hope it doesn't swing too far in either direction so that it breaks the clock.

This should have been good. It had a good script/book and cast. I ran out to rent it. I loved the other two movies so I figured I couldn't go wrong. Ha!

Everyone acted as if they were without direction. Often they appeared to be making up the character as they went along. I felt extremely sorry for George C. Scott as he seemed to winging it. A great chance was wasted here with the lack of direction.

Bridges also showed the direction problem. This was about the same time as the " Barnum " mini-series and it showed. He was also an irritant. By the time he had mocked Brady I was ready to kill him! Not at all the interesting multi-dimensional character that McGavin or Kelly had made him.

Others problems included the camera pans to and from Bridges. Instead of blending the way the first two versions had done with the reporter looking over the attorneys shoulder- this one had the camera cutting back and forth from him across the Courtroom to Drummond.

I can't believe it's rated higher then the 1988 version!

This version is a very strong remake of the original. Through most of the film, I believe that George C. Scott's performance is much stronger than March's. Especially the ending scene. Scott's performance is much more in depth, especially towards the end.

There are some great actors in this film, but the director has turned this great story into a crashing bore. The actors walk through their parts as if the director took the first take of every scene. He didn't make them act. In short, the director ruined the film.

Showtime did a short film about how the movie was made which was shown after the movie. George C Scott told how he complained that the director was not even on the set during filming (he was looking at a monitor from a control room). Scott had to ask him to come on the set and stand next to the camera. The director then commented how refreshing it was to be on the set during the filming. DUH!

Scott did a credible job as Matthew Harrison Brady, but I think he would have made a better Henry Drummond. Jack Lemmon was just not credible as the fiery Drummond. I think his normal soft approach is wrong for this part. Lemmon is far more fiery yelling at Walter Matthau in "The Odd Couple". Beau Bridges was just plain terrible, probably from lack of vision by the director.

I think if you watch this film, you should immediately go out and rent the 1960 version directed by Stanley Kramer to see how good this story really is and how a director can really make a film come alive.

How do you improve a great film? You don't. Showtime tried, with George C Scott and Jack Lemmon as the opponents in the 1925 Scopes Monkey trials story, but just as Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards Jr failed to so in 1988, this version doesn't come close to the brilliance of the Fredric March-Spencer Tracy version on 1960.

Scott doesn't seem to know how he wants to play Matthew Harrison Brady, the Biblical prosecutor of heavenly Hillsboro. He doesn't seem emotional at the right times. Lemmon, on the other doesn't try to be Tracy and thus his performance as Henry Drummond is more believable than Scott's. The two best performances are by Beau Bridges as EK Hornbeck and by John Cullum as the judge.

The biggest sins are committed by the secondary leads, Tom Everett Scott as Bertram Cates and Lane Smith as Reverand Brown can't find the fire displayed by Dick York, and Claude Akins in the Stanley Kramer Classic. And despite the fact that Donna Anderson was weak as Rachel Brown in the original, Kathryn Morris in this version, was weaker, in fact one can't feel any sympathy for Rachel after watching Ms Morris.

Still, it's tough to ruin a great story. Inherit The Wind is a classic that is successful despite subpar acting and a directing job that virtually duplicates Stanley Kramer's film, scene for scene.

The question is, why bother?

Watching this again in Dec/2021.

And it hits me: It highlights something I saw in Trump-worship, back in 2016. The early scene where Brady (Scott) addresses the religious throng at the train station reminds me of the spirit of Trumpheads as described by Matt Taibbi.

And... it's THE SAME THING. It's the spirit that derives a sense of categorical righteousness from mere belonging... it doesn't really matter whether it directly concerns in-/out-group association based on creed, or finds an outlet in political hero-worship. It's the same thing.

It's an ante-republican (no typo, there!), no-nothingness, feeling the same sense of righteous indignation at the political out-group as was felt in times past over the impugning of religious doctrine.

All the usual fineries of production are in tow, here: The casting is marvelous, up and down the roster. Everyone acquits themselves more-than-ably. Costuming, sets, editing, writing, directing... the thing is a marvel, and a dignified,high-toned last hurrah for Scott; amazing for made-for-TV, eh?

I think Inherit the wind was a good movie. This movie was made in 1999, making this George C Scott's last tv movie to make. He died in 1999, Jack Lemmon is a fantastic actor and one of my favourites. He died in 2001. I give this tv movie 10 out of 10 because i think it is a great tv movie.

I've seen three versions of the classic play Inherit the Wind, and the 1999 version is a very good one. Though nothing can compare with Fredric March's transformative performance from 1960, I never liked Spencer Tracy's "baked potato" delivery. In 1999, Jack Lemmon took over as the Clarence Darrow-type lawyer. Just as he did in the 12 Angry Men remake, he was much more likable and passionate about his predecessor. Even though I always felt playwrights Joseph Lawrence and Robert E. Lee gave the defense very weak arguments to present in court, Jack does his very best to give them strength and relevancy. Another improvement from the original is the constantly sarcastic reporter; Gene Kelly played it to the back row of the vaudeville theater, but Beau Bridges plays it to the small screen.

One aspect of this tv movie that is quite sad is the poor health of both leads. This was George C. Scott's last movie, and Jack Lemmon's second-to-last appearance in front of the camera. Both looked quite sickly, and George in particular was very frail. Perhaps because of their impending mortality, they poured their hearts into the play. They shared a friendly chemistry, probably due to having worked together before in 12 Angry Men, that the script required. No one can ever top Fredric March, but George was excellent. His loyal wife was played by Piper Laurie, as it was a tradition to take a classic actress who had worked with the actor playing Matthew Harrison Brady decades earlier. With Freddie, his real-life wife Florence Eldridge stood beside him. Kirk Douglas had his Spartacus costar Jean Simmons. George and Piper went back to 1961 with The Hustler.

In the supporting cast, you'll see Lane Smith as the overbearing reverend. Tom Everett Scott is the poor teacher on trial, and his conflicted girlfriend is Kathryn Morris. Keep your eyes open for Russ Tamblyn, who is in one of the opening scenes as the group of men talk about how the upcoming trial will affect their town, just before they read in the newspaper that Brady will prosecute.

This made for TV film version of the famous Lawrence and Lee Broadway success is a very enjoyable presentation, and captures two splendid veteran actors doing great work in the twilight of their careers. In the years since its original theatrical release, there have been two more made for TV film versions of Inherit the Wind (IW). Each of the four performances has champions and critics. All of them are interesting and worth seeing. None is dull and to be avoided. That in itself is rather remarkable. The four versions are:

(1) 1960 theatrical film starring Fredric March and Spencer Tracy.

(2) 1965 made for TV film starring Ed Begley and Melvyn Douglas.

(3) 1988 made for TV film starring Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards.

(4) 1999 made for TV film starring George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon.

Something very interesting happens when these four versions are considered as one body of work. Let me explain. For simplicity, I'll refer to each version by its indicated number.

Item: Three of the eight actors who played leading roles in the four versions of IW also played the identical leading roles in either a theatrical or TV film version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They are Fredric March (1), Spencer Tracy (1) and Kirk Douglas (3).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared in Days of Wine and Roses. The man starred in the theatrical movie version, and the woman originated the female leading role in the earlier TV version. They are Jack Lemmon (4) and Piper Laurie (4).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film Spartacus. They are Kirk Douglas (3) and Jean Simmons (3).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film The Hustler. They are George C. Scott (4) and Piper Laurie (4).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in two different versions of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film The Hustler. They are George C. Scott (4) and Murray Hamilton (2).

Coincidence? Of course. But interesting? You bet!

Take two of the finest actors of modern times; put them in a screenplay with one of the finest scripts ever written; produce it through a cable channel that is renown for generating excellent movies, what you get has to be great. Fantastic. Superb! It stunk. I order a hamburger with more feeling than the actors showed mechanically reading their lines. I don't care where you stand on the core issue of this story, and I don't care if the story followed the real trial. That's irrelevant. The story is the story, and it's a great one. It's great, that is, when Spencer Tracy, Fredrick March, and Gene Kelly perform it. It compares like coal to diamonds with Lemmon, Scott, and Bridges in the all too dim spotlight. If you really want to feel the impact of this play, see the original. This is one case where filmdom didn't evolve a better product.

I have never seen a poor adaptation of this great American Classic,however if I were to choose the worst adaptation out of a good bunch this recent adaptation would qualify. George C. Scott made a very good Matthew Brady,However He was masterful in the role of Henry Drummond on Broadway in 1997.Jack Lemmon was merely adequate in Scott's stage role of Drummond and the two never seemed to make a connection the way Scott and Charles Durning did on stage,or the way Spencer Tracy and Frederick March did on screen.

Beau Bridges was a fine,sarcastic E.K. Hornbeck and Lane Smith was a powerful hypocrite as Rev. Brown.

The pace of this recent adaptation was slow and not as exciting as previous film versions. It was worth watching but not nearly as satisfying as the 1960 film or the Broadway revival.

This version is just plain bad, which is shocking considering the talent involved! If you want to see the best version of this famous trial, skip all the remakes, and rent the classic 1960 film instead. To be fair to Scott and Lemmon, it's not that they are so awful, it is more like Spencer Tracy, and Fredric March were born to play these 2 characters, and they played them to perfection! Dick York, Gene Kelly, and Claude Akins, also brought a realism, and conviction to their roles of the teacher on trial, the reporter and the fire and brimstone preacher... respectively, that the actors portraying the same characters here, cannot come close to equaling. Skip this version, and rent the 1960 film, and judge for yourself.

I am sad that these two great actors are no longer with us. They both gave so much to us via Hollywood. This movie is one of many productions where their talent shined.

Inherit the Wind -1999- is about a teacher who was tried for teaching evolution back in 1925. The writers and director portrayed both men as honorable, intelligent members of society who simply had a different viewpoint. Unlike movies like Runaway Jury -2003- which demonized the firearm industry, and portrayed the other side as kind and caring. This film, Inherit the Wind, handled both sides of the Evolution debate seriously. Runaway Jury for example, had a jury member initiate the pledge of allegiance in court. A silly stunt that took the credibility of the movie away.

I highly recommend this film for the whole family and teachers should show this film for their students to watch. I am sure the discussions afterwards should be quite interesting.

--shutterbug--

Scott and Lemon do a curious reversal of the 1960 film with March and Tracy in the same roles. Tracy played the Darrow character (defending Scopes) as a cool, rational lawyer (capable of indignation when defending 'truth') contrasted with March (prosecuting attorney) as an emotionally-driven politician with an enormous personal stake in biblical literalism.

The 1999 remake has Scott defending literalism as the rational position, with Lemon dancing about railing against religious belief. This interpretation is neither true to the original trial, the text of the play, nor to the issues involved.

In my review of the original I've note the historical inaccuracies of the play, which are no more bothersome than the impossibility of cloning dinosaurs from mosquito blood meals in Jurassic.

I wish someone would do a play based on the Dover trial: the Nova special shows its inherent drama.

I don't know why there are so many bad comments about this remake, you can't really expect these actors to better the original 1960 version. George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon did an excellant job in their respective roles. I think Lane Smith (who is usually an excellant actor) did a poor job though as Rev. Brown. I think Scott went out with a bang! He will always be remembered as a great actor.