Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Scott and Lemon do a curious reversal of the 1960 film with March and Tracy in the same roles. Tracy played the Darrow character (defending Scopes) as a cool, rational lawyer (capable of indignation when defending 'truth') contrasted with March (prosecuting attorney) as an emotionally-driven politician with an enormous personal stake in biblical literalism.The 1999 remake has Scott defending literalism as the rational position, with Lemon dancing about railing against religious belief. This interpretation is neither true to the original trial, the text of the play, nor to the issues involved.In my review of the original I've note the historical inaccuracies of the play, which are no more bothersome than the impossibility of cloning dinosaurs from mosquito blood meals in Jurassic.I wish someone would do a play based on the Dover trial: the Nova special shows its inherent drama.

I don't know why there are so many bad comments about this remake, you can't really expect these actors to better the original 1960 version. George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon did an excellant job in their respective roles. I think Lane Smith (who is usually an excellant actor) did a poor job though as Rev. Brown. I think Scott went out with a bang! He will always be remembered as a great actor.

This production of Inherit the Wind is a fine attempt but just doesn't have the punch that the original 1960 one did. I would on the other hand rate this one over the 1988 version. Jack Lemmon gave a somewhat flat performance as did George C. Scott sadly in his last role. It's not completely bad but if you really want to watch this story then the 1960 Stanley Kramer production with Spencer Tracy and Fredrick March is the way to go. You'll notice the difference. One additional note: If Jason Robards portrayal of Henry Drummond from the 88 version would have been in this one now that would have made a difference.

I have never seen a poor adaptation of this great American Classic,however if I were to choose the worst adaptation out of a good bunch this recent adaptation would qualify. George C. Scott made a very good Matthew Brady,However He was masterful in the role of Henry Drummond on Broadway in 1997.Jack Lemmon was merely adequate in Scott's stage role of Drummond and the two never seemed to make a connection the way Scott and Charles Durning did on stage,or the way Spencer Tracy and Frederick March did on screen. Beau Bridges was a fine,sarcastic E.K. Hornbeck and Lane Smith was a powerful hypocrite as Rev. Brown. The pace of this recent adaptation was slow and not as exciting as previous film versions. It was worth watching but not nearly as satisfying as the 1960 film or the Broadway revival.