How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

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

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

If you research "Inherit the Wind," you'll find it was never intended to be an accurate depiction of the Scopes' trial, but a dark fantasy warning against extreme views. In the process, it has come to represent an extreme view of its own, grossly unlike the real people and trial. This film should be viewed by everyone who has seen Inherit the Wind, especially those who thought it was anything like an accurate, historical representation. Does this film present only one side? yes, it does, but it doesn't distort the truth the way the more famous drama does. Does it show Mencken as a cynical cuss out to make big news? Well, he was, and so were many other reporters of the time. Does it show people supporting forced sterilization and other forms of eugenics? Well, they did, right on up to Supreme Court justices, and they did so on the grounds of evolutionary beliefs. The book that Scopes taught from promoted eugenics as a proper application of knowledge of evolution. Does it downplay the "evidences for evolution" that were entered into the record? Well, a number of those turned out to be misinterpretations and one (Piltdown Man) turned out to be an outright fraud! It does also show that the majority of scientists were in favor of teaching evolution, and that a number of theologians and leading clergymen stood with them. Those who have poorly rated this movie clearly have done so because they hate the idea that their twisted one-sided production has been matched by the other side, perhaps equally one-sided but far closer to the truth, with a lighter tone and a happier ending.

How in the world do you produce a boring film about the events so brilliantly treated in the Academy Award winning film "Inherit The Wind"? Answer: Turn the production over to the Church. This production is so squeaky clean and well scrubbed it doesn't even resemble a human story. Amazingly, I didn't even get that this was a "Christian" project until I checked for Extras - something I enjoy doing on DVDs. I wondered how this project had gone so far wrong. And then I found out. The Extras section consisted of discussion prompts for church study groups and references to scripture. I sure wish the DVD box had warned me! It all just made me appreciate the 1960 Spencer Tracey classic that much more. It's hard to believe there are Americans still fighting the Scopes Monkey trial today, nearly 90 years later. It's sad that the church still has to align itself as a mortal enemy of knowledge, but that's a subject for another rant. The one extra star in this review is for the photographic work. This film is really quite visually impressive. I love the subtle use of brown & white (daguerreotype) to give the images a dated look. Very effective. Too bad the rest of this film was so boring.

A misfortune from start to finish - flat characterizations with revisionist mangling of historical figures held to improbable dramatic postures to support unlikely plot conclusions. The scenes are vapid. The dialog and language wholly uninspired, the players unconvinced. The idea, added to this script, that evolution is somehow responsible for the emergence of a new brand of human cruelty - is an irresponsible and strained plot device: apparently the only thing they could come up with for the "good vs evil" storyline unavailable to them from plausible historical fact. This film is no help to those for whom dramatic equivalent to Inherit the Wind was imagined. This might better be titled "Inherit the Gas"

For years, Hollywood has made various adaptations of the Scopes Monkey Trial by doing versions of "Inherit the Wind", a fictionalized account that grinds whatever axes Hollywood wants to grind that year.This film tries to tell the Christian side of the story, and there is some ax-grinding here.The things that the film gets right. The "Scopes Monkey Trial" was not a ruthless persecution of poor John Scopes, but a publicity stunt by the dying town of Dayton, Tennessee to try to attract commerce by challenging the Butler Act. It escalated beyond anyone's control when the trial became a debate between Clarance Darrow (played by Brian Dennihy) and failed Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan (played by failed presidential candidate Fred Dalton Thompson) over the Bible and Darwin's theories.Bryan is portrayed sympathetically here, as truly concerned that the implications that people were drawing from Darwin's theories devalued human life. The film pulls no punches, not only making Bryan completely sympathetic, but also having the subplot of the black girl who is going to be sterilized under theories of eugenics. The film takes pains to point out that Bryan was a champion for women's suffrage and the common man.Brian Dennehy portrays Clarance Darrow, as a ruthless but somewhat sympathetic lawyer. They do give him a moment where he does something decent, though. But really, Dennehy and Thompson have extended cameos by actors doing an "art" film. The real story is the small town reporter Charles B Anderson (whom I'm guessing is fictional) who works with famous writer H.L. Mencken , and struggles with journalistic ethics vs. wanting to advance himself. He finds himself pulled between his love interest and Mencken, who is portrayed as really kind of unsavory.Mencken is played with devilish glee by Colm Meaney of Star Trek fame. He has no ethics and doesn't care who he hurts in the process. When a person he mocks complains about why he mocked her, he replies that "because you're backwards and you're proud of it!" It's a great villainous performance.Some other observations- Filmed in Sepia-Vision. Yes, anything that takes place between about 1850 and 1940 is filmed in "Sepia-Vision" that tinting of film that makes things look brownish. So we are reminded that we are in olden times. "I was fined $100? That's a lot of money back now!" Overall, I recommend this film, heavy handed as it is, and not being particularly religious myself. I think the characters are fleshed out just enough to make them interesting.