Inherit the Wind

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.