This version of the Scopes Trial is better than the first TV version for several reasons, the first is that its a reasonable running time. Next it doesn't have breaks for commercials, this was done for cable and not commercial TV. Lastly this has the performances of Lemon and Scott who come damn close to equaling Tracy and March in the first version of this.George C Scott was to star on Broadway in a revival of this play a year or two before he made this film. Illness prevented him appearing in most of the run, but based on this performance seeing it live must have been electric. There are several small moments, one near the end of the film in particular where his mastery of acting shine through. In that final moment, the weight of the battle and its implications loom large, sitting on his bed with his wife he begins to break down in ways that are touching and heart breaking. Lemmon is his equal and he easily makes this one for the ages as he spars with Scott about what is and is not history and sacred.This is a great TV movie which only has as its flaw the fact that its not the original.

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!

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.

Showtime has really outdone themselves this time, with Inherit the Wind. The movie was factual, interesting, and with some of the best actors around. Jack Lemmon and George C.Scott did some of the finest courtroom drama I've seen in a long time. Tom Everett Scott did a wonderful job with what little he had. The only flaw in the movie is that the part of the teacher, was not big enough, they did not give Tom Everett Scott the chance to show his stuff.