The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

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.

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?)!

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 new adaptation of Inherit the Wind is pretty weak. It's supposed to tell the story of the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial", but it glorifies the whole thing into a preachy non-reality that the real trial never was. The dialogue is painful in its wordiness, with Lemmon and Scott seeming to make the whole thing up as they go along. Apparently, learning your script is a lost art. In this version, the Scopes character is overdramatically ripped away from teaching evolution and thrown in the slammer. In reality, Scopes was never in a jail cell, and the entire trial was kind of a bet between Scopes and the townspeople on who would win (the penalty for teaching evolution was only $100, which was to be paid by a newspaper if Scopes lost). The entire trial was a premeditated media circus conceived with the specific intent of attracting people to move to town. Instead, with Scopes' loss in court the town was considered ignorant by most and the trial was only an ephemeral economic interest. The REAL story, I think, is far more interesting. This contrived version basically rips on the law itself--something which is easy to do and boring to watch.