Product Details

• Actors: Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, David Wells, Beau Bridges, Tom Everett Scott
• Directors: Daniel Petrie
• Writers: Harold Jacob Smith, Jerome Lawrence, Nedrick Young, Robert E. Lee
• Producers: David Lane Seltzer, Dennis Bishop, Keith Addis
• Format: Closed-captioned, Color, NTSC
• Language: English
• Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Number of tapes: 1
• Studio: MGM (Video & DVD)
• VHS Release Date: November 7, 2000
• Run Time: 113 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
• ASIN: 6305600988
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #895 in Video (See Bestsellers in Video)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #3 in	Video > Mystery & Suspense > Crime > Courtroom Drama
  #12 in	Video > Drama > Television
  #71 in	Video > Television

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The word classic can readily be applied to the story of what became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, which led to the Broadway hit that has now been filmed for the third time. With Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott playing adversarial attorneys, this period piece deals in ideas and ideals in a masterful courtroom drama.

In 1925, a schoolteacher is arrested for teaching Darwinism in the community of Hillsboro, where such scientific refutations of the Bible are illegal. Scott plays prosecutor Matthew Brady (based on politician Williams Jennings Bryan), bringing majesty and tragedy to a character many would find repugnant, as he prophetically bemoans a society moving "from love of God to love of self." Jack Lemmon plays attorney Henry Drummond (based on the legendary Clarence Darrow) and brings his trademark portrayal of the "little guy" to a man determined to protect a citizen's basic right to freedom of thought, proclaiming, "An idea is a greater monument to God than a cathedral." The wonderful supporting cast, including Beau Bridges, Piper Laurie, and John Cullum, all demonstrate their love of a multilayered drama filled with conundrums of faith and contradictions of philosophy. Veteran director Daniel Petrie helms with little flash, but his production offers so many concepts and emotions that the high points of drama remain with the viewer after the film is over. --Lloyd Chesley

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Inherit the Wind (1999), August 26, 2000

By	Joseph L. Warren (Auburn Hills, MI USA) - See all my reviews

A truly excellent remake of an American classic. Once you get past any inital reservations you may (understandably) have about the film's made-for-cable origins, you will find a work that is, in my opinion, just as engaging as the 1960 version. Two gripes: 1.As mentioned by another reviewer, the direction and camera work is a bit static and elementary. 2. As also mentioned by another reviewer, Beau Bridges at times is too obnixious and over the top. On the other hand, Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott (in his final performace) are absolutely riveting. Piper Laurie is also very compelling as Scott's sympathetic and diplomatic wife. This incarnation of the film is extremely faithful to its predecessor, virtually a frame by frame re-shoot. Yet the dialouge, performaces and subject matter are just as fresh and stirring as they were 40 years ago. Fans of the 1960 release should certainly enjoy, or at least appreciate this latest adaption.

11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars One of the few remakes that stands up to the original, June 18, 2000

By	Robert P. Beveridge "xterminal" (Cleveland, OH) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

Hold the phone. It's a remake that's almost as good as the original.

Much of the brilliance of the new version of Inherit the Wind comes from finding two old fogeys who have the same love/hate chamistry brought to life in the original by Frederic March and Spencer Tracy; in this case, the friendly adversaries are George C. Scott, in his last performance before his death, and Jack Lemmon. Toss in Beau Bridges as the wisecracking journalist and a surprisingly downbeat performance by Thom Evertt Scott as the teacher who ends up a guinea pig in one of the biggest trials of the century, and you got yourself a fine film. The comic timing is impeccable on all counts, the lines from the film that have become cliche are delivered with the same freshness that ignited them decades ago, and one can almost believe that Scott and Lemmon actually are Bryan and Darrow haggling it out in a Tennessee courtroom.

If you've never seen _Inherit the Wind_, start with the classic Spencer Tracy/Frederic March version from 1960. If you're a fan of the film already, and have been avoiding this remake because nothing can do the original justics, well, you're right... but it comes as close as possible.

13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A thought provoking film. George C.Scott gives a compelling, April 17, 2000

By	"flickjunkie" (Atlanta, GA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

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.