Rating: 
Summary: Good film-making, but false
Review: If this movie presented itself as a work of fiction, it could merit four stars for its acting and cinematography. However, the film presents itself as a dramatization of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Its presentation of the Scopes fiasco is so off-base that this film deserves 1 star, no matter how well it was made.Let me list some of the historical falsehoods portrayed by the film: 1. The anti-Darwninists assaulted and intimated the evolutionists. This simply isn't true. The movie shows the beleagured evolutionist high school teacher, who simply wants to expand the minds of his students, being arrested, jailed, and threatened by an ignorant mob. This didn't happen. In fact, the town of Dayton orchestrated the Monkey Trial as a way to put their town on the map. Scopes hosted a party the day before the trial, and was treated as a local celebrity. 2. The anti-evolutionists taught the Earth was 6,000 years old. That's not true. Mainstream Christians have always believed the Earth was old; the "Young Earth" view emerged from the sub-orthodox Seventh Day Adventist denomination and has spread to some separatistic fundamentalist groups like the Baptist Bible Fellowship, but Young Earthism wasn't a factor in the Scopes trial. All mainstream Christian denominations, like the Southern Baptists or United Methodists, allow the old earth view. 3. The evolutionists were enlightened, benelovent people who loved knowledge. This is a lie. The textbook used in Dayton was a racist, eugenicistic manifesto that later influenced people to form eugenic societies and support the Third Reich. In court transcripts, the evolutionists open spoke of their racist views, and mused that someday the Negroes would lose out to natural selection and the earth would be solely populated by Whites. By contrast, the anti-Darwinists argued that Darwinism undermined morality and would lead to exactly the kind of evils as the world witnessed twenty years later under Hitler. 4. The evolutionists won the court case. False. They lost. The only reason that the Scopes trial is perceived as a victory for Darwinism is because unethical reporters found the real story boring, and so they invented a tale about ignorant Fundamentalists descending on a sleepy little town. (Actually, the town wanted to be at the center of a brohaha and deliberately put Scopes up to breaking the law.) ... Young Earth Creationists, who I feel subvert classic Christian doctrines about the Bible and creation and who dispute the basic tenants of science itself. But Inherit the Wind simply isn't a reliable historical account. It contributes nothing but misunderstanding and stereotypes to the public's understanding of the creation/evolution debate.
Rating: 
Summary: 'Inherit the Wind' is as Relevant Today As Ever
Review: Loosely based on the "Scopes Monkey Trial," this film is the acting version of a heavyweight fight. "Inherit the Wind" pits two stellar actors in Spencer Tracy and Fredric March against each other, and it's hard to determine which is the better acted role. They act their guts out in a film that has issues people STILL debate fiercely today. It focuses on the issues of Creationism, Evolution, and the arrogance often exhibited by both theory's adherants. March being the staunch defender of Creationism, and Biblical truth, and Tracy's defense of Evolution, and science over superstition. It is gripping, well-produced, and well worth the time invested in it. It will either reaffirm your beliefs, or challenge them. Either way, it is an experience not to be missed.
Rating: 
Summary: "Sit down, Sampson, you're about to get a haircut"
Review: Although Inherit the Wind was made in 1960 about a trial in 1920, it retains a surprising amount of bite. In the film, based on the stage play of the same name, in turn based on the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, a biology teacher is jailed for teaching evolution. This sets up the film's centerpiece: a courtroom battle between famed attorneys, portrayed by acting heavyweights Spencer Tracy and Frederic March. Gene Kelly is surprisingly good in a non-dancing role, and gets the best lines as the cynical journalist from Baltimore ("Sit down, Sampson, you're about to get a haircut," he says to the teacher when his girlfriend is called to testify). Directed by the great Stanley Kramer, the film works well on a number of levels: comedy, courtroom drama, and commentary on religion's place in society.
Rating:
Summary: Great piece of propoganda
Review: A lot of people have confused this film with the Scopes Trial. The film is based on a play and is a rather biased view of a histocial event. The Scopes trial was an attempt by civil libaterians to have the local legislation outlawing the teaching of Darwin's theories taught in schools. It was intended that a trial be run and that it be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The authorities in the town in question were eager to cooperate with the civil rights lawyers as it would bring the small town a bit of attention. In real life the taking of the case by Clarence Darrow confused things and led to a monetary penalty which made any appeal impossible. In fact creationists won the battle as the law stayed on the history books for years. The play however is a passionate attack on creationism and the sort of closed mind that was thought to lay behind such an outlook. It is of course highly ironic in many respects. William Jennings Bryan who took over the prosecution was a long time democrat. He was concerned about Darwanism as he thought that Specerist theories of the development of society led to a view that the working and labouring classes could be left on the scrap heap. He thought that Christianity was a better basis for the achievment of a just society. When this play was written those arguments had been forgotten. The play is written in a way to portray Bryan as a bigotted fool and Clarence Darrow as the man of the hour. In fact Darrow was a person who had been associated with reasonably extreme left wing groups. Never the less the film is a masterful piece of propoganda which has the power even today to move people. It is of course a long way from a factual account of the reality of the scopes trial.
Rating:
Summary: An underrated classic
Review: Historical inaccuracies aside, "Inherit The Wind" is a classic film which is often overlooked in movie history. With an incredible (and Oscar-nominated) script, as well as some of the finest performances ever given by actors, this film is truly one of the greats of all time. But AFI's "100 Greatest Movie" list (as well as countless others) doesn't acknowledge it (or any Kramer film, if I'm not mistaken). Regardless, this is a gem of a movie. (And thank God it was given DVD treatment... the VHS was ancient and hard to come by).
Rating:
Summary: Great movie, bad history, but still instructive.
Review: Like many of the other reviews ( I have not read them all) I too agree that overall "Inherit the Wind" is a fine movie (with fine actors). It is also a very instructive film because it raises critical issues still alive today concerning the (often needless) conflicts between faith and science, as well as the conflicts between one's beliefs and the right of someone else to think differently. (Hey, that's the risk you take when you create a democracy of any worth for ALL people, not just those of a particular color, class, or religious persuasion.) Indeed, I team teach a college history course in which we use "Inherit the Wind" to bring out these and other issues. However, be aware that the movie is an adaptation of the play, which is itself a distortion of what happened at the real Scopes trial. Try this link for a good summary of the play itself as well as a thoughtful, even-handed critique. http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9702/iannone.html Enjoy the film. I have, many times. Let it be the springboard for stimulating discussions. But do not let this film alone form your opinion on the issues. In a culture that gets far too much of its information and opinions from visual media, rather than actual exploration of the facts, this is no small warning I assure you. The film is an adaptation of an adaptation--i.e., a play with an agenda clearly defined in the script itself, and as such it distorts, caricatures and exudes superiority. This is yet one more instance when real history is far more interesting, and certainly more helpful, than Hollywood would let us know. Buy the DVD: Movie (4 stars); history (2 stars).
Rating:
Summary: Review of the film, NOT the point of view
Review: People have written previously here about how this is a totally distorted representation of the Scopes trial, how things were much more amenable in real life, etc. Sure, I know this and recognize that factually, sure, you're right. But what this movie adaptation of an award-winning stage play does, what all good art does, is it gets past what is or was reality to show us what really was and is in the human psyche -- in this case to show not what really happened in the Scopes trial but what people in this nation FELT was happening, how people across the country saw it in their own minds, and how it affected them. Reality's boring and messy and people don't like to pay to sit & watch reality for 2 hours when they can do it for free at home. They want a story, and they want a story that means something, and I feel ItW certainly means something to those who see it. One thing the True Believers here who'd like to review what they think is the movie's bias rather than its quality and story fail to see is that this is a very even-handed treatment that gives every side its due and seeks a compromised middle path. If the Bryan character is a gluttonous blowhard on the downslope of his political career, the Mencken character is a self-absorbed dandy fool who loves nothing more than the sound of his own voice and would rather make news than report facts. Like Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Inherit the Wind takes alot of hits for points of view presented in the film. What we have to do as critical movie viewers though is look beyond the point of view to the quality of the storytelling and effectiveness of the use of the medium. In both cases I find them stunning, and I think anyone who rents Inherit the Wind will find themselves both entertained and challenged.
Rating: 
Summary: Slanted Without Historical Basis
Review: Although the acting in this movie is quite good, especially by Spencer Tracey, it is highly controversial. Many people, including myself, are offended by the negative portrayal of creationists. I also found out that the movie, typical with "The Hollywood Twist" is far from the reality of what happened in real life. ...
Rating:
Summary: Peerless Tracy!!
Review: Just when you think you might have seen the best Spencer Tracy performance..along comes this film. He is almost matched by a very sturdy Frederick March. The courthouse is chewed up by these two in some very compelling scenes. Gene Kelly plays a H L Menken character, Dick York the teacher who dared...Elliot Reed is bombastic along with a nice supporting cast including Ray Teal & Harry Morgan. Tracy is older and and has physical limitations...it doesnt matter ..you cant take your eyes off of him..and if you do..you miss just another wonderfull facial expression that needs no dialogue for conveyance of nuance. Just the way Tracy delivers lines in a low tone such as " no questions" is a treat. Memorable if not historically correct.
Rating:
Summary: A classic? Yes. A fair portrayal? Hardly.
Review: This film includes some of the best writing, acting, and directing around. In terms of technical achievement, it is the quintessence of the classic film. The reason I give it only one star is that it is also little more than melodramatic propaganda. And politically manipulative cinema well-done is worse even than B-movie vulgarity. Spencer Tracy's Clarence Darrow is sage, debonair, and self-effacing. He gets all the witty and eloquent dialogue. Conversely, Fredric March's William Jennings Bryan is a self-righteous, maniacally-bumbling troglodyte. Who wouldn't love Darrow and loathe Bryan after such a depiction? These are not people but caricatures right out of a political cartoon. What's wrong with giving such a biased representation? Nothing-unless you're trying to pass it off as a serious and objective portrayal. Even if this film is meant as a metaphor for the McCarthy witch hunts, it uses the insidious techniques of propaganda in presenting that metaphor (unlike the admirable metaphorical treatment of the same subject in Arthur Miller's The Crucible). Instead of carefully and responsibly depicting its characters as complex and real human beings, it portrays one as the flawless hero and the other as the inferior villain with a convenient disregard for fact or subtlety. Regardless of what "true life" situation it is used to portray, melodrama can only provide a simplistic distortion of that situation. And when it treats a political controversy with such an exaggerated imbalance, it becomes propaganda, calculated to dupe an audience into rating a cause by its advocate's personality traits instead of by the merits of the cause itself. In this sense the renowned and talented Stanley Kramer (as well as the playwright of the original stage drama) are no better here than D. W. Griffith's was when, with his classic Civil War epic The Birth of a Nation, he effectually portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as knights in shining armor and the blacks as conniving devils. Good film making? Yes. Intellectually insulting? Also, unfortunately, yes.
| 
