chandrabhargava 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.

17268 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?

Coolguy-7 Although my one-line summary says it's great for a history classroom, which of course it is, I actually watched it in government class. It is about the trial of John Scopes who had been arrested for teaching the evolution of human beings and saying that they evolved rather than were created by God. This is a pretty weird law and in America (the land of free speech). This was something that they would've done to you back in the Middle Ages. I mean this story takes place in the 1920's for Heaven sakes. Certainly by that time we knew more about science to believe that humans evolved over a period of time. This was a pretty good movie and I think that all history students should watch it.

JB-12 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?