ShangLuda Admirable film.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

scarr-6 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.

k_syndicate OK. I use classic as an adjective when I have good reason to believe it would stand the test of time. This one would.Lemmon and Scott clash again after 12 Angry Men. The movie is very relevant and a must see for school kids.Essentailly the part played by Scott as the theologian is much tougher to play and how he makes a complete fool of himself toward the end of the movie is very convincing. Despite the obvious mistakes he (the chracter) makes, you cannot help but feel sorry for the chracter.See it without commercial breaks (DVD?)!

CheshireCatsGrin 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!

Sean84 Have you ever seen the four-legged fish with Darwin written in it and wondered "What's that supposed to mean?" Have you seen the current religious debates on Evolution and thought, "It's just a theory, why the big deal?" Rent "Inherit the Wind" to help you understand why. While it has been a common practice to label fundamentalists as religious zealots, this movie helps show that anti-religious zealots can be a big problem, too. Both Bridges and Lemmon portray exploitive agnostics bent on tearing down a town's cornerstone of faith, and peace. These actors deserve an award for making their portrayal of opportunists completely believable. This was George C. Scott's final role. He played it brilliantly, the final moments are some of the best. One of the most shameful parts of the movie is when the town forms a mob and chants "We shall all hang Mr. Drummond" to the tune of "Give me that old-time religion". However, the film overplays these attacks and in the process makes a point that the characters' promotion of Darwin has more to do with debasing religion than it has in promoting science, and much less in proving the innocence of their client. Just so you don't confuse this with the actual trial: John Scopes (Cates in the movie) was a football coach/math teacher; he hadn't ever been a disciple of Darwin or champion for Science as the movie promotes him. The students were never even taught evolution. Darrow(Drummond in the movie) actually demanded that Scopes be charged guilty.