I loved the original Inherit the Wind. Fredric March gave one of the best film performances of all time, as the evangelical lawyer Matthew Harrison Brady in 1960. I knew going into it that the remake probably wouldn't be as good as the original, but I wanted to give it a chance, for Kirk Douglas's sake. He tried very hard, and had he not been following Fredric March, he would have given a great performance. But if you've seen the original, no one else can play Matthew Harrison Brady.In case you haven't seen the original, the story is an adapted version of the famous Scopes Monkey trial in the 1920s. A teacher in America's Deep South, teaches his students about Charles Darwin, and he's arrested. The majority of the film takes place in the courtroom, as two legendary lawyers battle the issue. So, if you don't like one of the two lead actors, it will greatly affect your enjoyment of the film. I'm not a Spencer Tracy fan, but with Jason Robards taking his place in the remake, I began to appreciate Spence's performance better. I know there are some people out there who are Jason Robards fans, but I'm not one of them. He's just not likable, and he always seems tired, bored, slightly angry, and wishing he was anywhere but on a film set.If you really like Kirk Douglas, you'll probably want to see this movie, but it's not nearly as good as the original. Jean Simmons plays Kirk's wife, and even though she gives a good performance, there was nothing really wrong with her predecessor, Florence Eldridge. Watch the original, and if you really enjoy the story and like Kirk Douglas, then you can rent this one.

I know, I know: The Kramer & Tracy original has become a true classic, but...I prefer THIS little masterpiece. There is a lot of little great points that makes this TV release much more than that: a) The characters performance. Not only Kirk Douglas (he really fit his character), not only Robards (so often a secondary actor), but also Jean Simmons, Darren McGavin and the Judge, even the little Rachel Brown or Kyle Secor. We can guess a master hand behind all these. b) The characters are very very well developed: Mathew Brady has much more power than Fredric March in 60s version (even we can intimate a little with him in moments as his speech at church), Robards owes nothing to the great Tracy. The journalist is here more interesting (more heavy, more cynical, more aged-atheist) than Gene Kelly. It's a good point the youthfulness and artlessness of both the teacher and fiancée c) The director, thought obviously more limited by budget, is capable to offer an equilibrated narration and some great moments (such as the confronted reception of Brady and Drummond)Sometimes we were more impressed by the version the first saw, if this is good. Maybe this is also the case (I saw first the Green film).

Although it was not as good as the first, Inherit the Wind was as enjoyable. The performances changed the characters without changing the script much, and the acting was strong enough to pull it off. I did like both leads and have seen this version 5+ times. I have rented them both back to back, and enjoyed both versions as if they were totally different movies-believing this one can stand on it's own.I have gone back and forth on which is better.

Robards steals the picture and won an Emmy as a wonderful Henry Drummond, while Kirk Douglas feels too uncomfortable as Matthew Harrison Brady. The version runs at an okay pace, but doesn't have the luster of Stanley Kramer's 1960 version. With the exception of Robards, many of the other performances are either passable or mediocre.