Featured Audience Ratings

• Universal D

  
  Based on the famous Scopes 'monkey trial" of 1925 ("the good ol'days! man, i wish we could go back!") this serious work suffers from the heavy hand of liberalism weighty throughout. Of course, when it was made, 1960, things were decidedly different which can… More
  Based on the famous Scopes 'monkey trial" of 1925 ("the good ol'days! man, i wish we could go back!") this serious work suffers from the heavy hand of liberalism weighty throughout. Of course, when it was made, 1960, things were decidedly different which can explain the overdoing of things. Anyhow, though it's lost some of its urgency none of its poetry has gone.

• Jim H

  
  A Tennessee teacher violates a law against teaching evolution. What is most remarkable about <i>Inherit the Wind</i> is its progressive politics, which are on full display, demonizing, in some cases, the blindly religious and valorizing those on the side of evolution.… More
  A Tennessee teacher violates a law against teaching evolution. What is most remarkable about <i>Inherit the Wind</i> is its progressive politics, which are on full display, demonizing, in some cases, the blindly religious and valorizing those on the side of evolution. People march in unison, singing "That Old Time Religion," and the preacher's anti-evolution speech is lit in dark tones, like we're listening to the film's villain. <i>Inherit the Wind</i> doesn't "teach the controversy;" it takes a clear side. Obviously, I'm in line with the film's politics, but I was glad that the film didn't take the easy way out, equating all who believe in creationism with hypocrisy and foolishness; there are a few reasons to like Brady, the prosecutor, and even if one can't like him, one can at least find him pitiable. I also liked Gene Kelly's performance. He delivers quick, scathing one-liners like a dance step: "Woman: I know where you can find a nice, comfortable bed. Kelly's character: I had a nice comfortable bed, and I left it to come here." What bothered me about this film were the trial scenes. Everything seemed over-the-top, staged, like the lawyers were more concentrated on sounding like skilled rhetors than proving their respective case. Such theatrics, including the defense attorney breaking into a long speech about individual freedom during questioning and the prosecutor addressing the crowd like a cheerleader instead of the jury, seem more common in courtroom movies than in the courtroom. The result is a lack of verisimilitude and, for me, a conscious realization that I was watching actors, not lawyers. Overall, there's a lot to like about this important film, but I think that the filmmakers took too many liberties with reality.

• familiar s

  
  Stanley Kramer comes up with yet another masterpiece. I wish I'd heard of this movie earlier. IMO, it's a hidden gem. But (given its subject matter) I can understand why it's not so popular. If you can overlook some of its shortcomings (wherein its plot doesn't… More
  Stanley Kramer comes up with yet another masterpiece. I wish I'd heard of this movie earlier. IMO, it's a hidden gem. But (given its subject matter) I can understand why it's not so popular. If you can overlook some of its shortcomings (wherein its plot doesn't belong; even though it might offend a very few, depending on one's viewpoint) giving it the benefit of the period during which it was released, it's par excellence. For shortcomings, it has some cliches, a bit of overacting (intended and essential, but at times it sounds louder than necessary) and some unnecessary scenes (certain tracks between Drummond and Mrs. Brady, and the ones including Rachel seemed forced). Hope all/some of that was done keeping in mind the audience's taste at that time. Even otherwise, the rest of the movie doesn't merely make up for it but even offer a bonus entertainment. The dialogues and the dialogue delivery by Hornbeck (Gene Kelly) are mesmerizing. Can't understand why Drummond (Tracy) wasn't assigned such lines despite of having the opportunity in some sequences. He's kept mum while he could have fired back. The character was far less aggressive than I expected. Shoulda been intentional. I don't think it was owing to the dialogue writers going blank. Either way, it didn't fit in the picture. It has its fair share of flaws, but I'd still very much recommend it.

• Jonathan H

  
  Inherit The Wind is based of one of the landmark lawsuits in history, the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial." This Stanley Kramer produced and directed gem is extremely well crafted and can entertain even the most jaded of modern audiences. It has aged remarkably well, which is due,… More
  Inherit The Wind is based of one of the landmark lawsuits in history, the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial." This Stanley Kramer produced and directed gem is extremely well crafted and can entertain even the most jaded of modern audiences. It has aged remarkably well, which is due, in part, to the fact that the creationism vs. evolution debate is still as controversial and hotly contested today as it was back then, but it's also a testament to the outstanding screenplay written by the often-blacklisted Nedrick Young and Harold Smith. On Kramer's orders, they kept close to the transcript and descriptions of the trial at the time. The result is a beautifully worded script that delivers several fine exchanges between the two lawyers (Henry Drummond, played by Spencer Tracy, and William James Brady, played by the brilliant Frederic March) and by all accounts accurately captures the essence of the original event. Both are such wonderful actors that they are able to make the positions of their characters sound convincing. They develop little sets of mannerisms that serve to distract the audience while each other is speaking. March continually plays to the courtroom audience with rolls of his eyes, rubbing his head, or agitated fanning of his face. Tracy's efforts are less obvious, but just as effective -- lengthy pauses, contemptuous expressions. It is, as Kramer noted, "... a remarkable experience to watch two great professionals, standing toe to toe, each staying within the limits of his strongest acting skills -- Tracy as an elegant expressive man of inner conviction, March as a vociferous, bombastic preacher and orator." Kramer wisely limited his camera work and he simply let these great actors duel. The result is a thought-provoking, intelligent, and endlessly entertaining debate between two passionate, committed lawyers and one of the greatest courtroom battles in cinematic history. A must-see for history buffs and fans of the courtroom drama.

• Devon B

  
  Two big acting powerhouses, Spencer Tracy and Fredrich March, go head-to-head in this film based on the real-life 1925 case about a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. Fredrich March plays Matthew Harrison Brady, a character based on William Jennings Bryan.… More
  Two big acting powerhouses, Spencer Tracy and Fredrich March, go head-to-head in this film based on the real-life 1925 case about a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. Fredrich March plays Matthew Harrison Brady, a character based on William Jennings Bryan. He's a loud (exceedingly loud) political figure who ran for president three times (and lost three times), and invites himself to be special prosecuter in the case against the teacher, partly to uphold his good creationist/christian beliefs and partly to publicize and celebrate himself. A cynical reporter covering the case manages to get his paper to hire Henry Drummond (Spencer Tracy), a character based on Clarence Darrow, to represent the school teacher. This sets up a clash of titan attorneys, although both men are friends and former co-workers (Drummond worked on Brady's presidential campaigns). It's no help to Drummond that the entire town is biased against the school teacher, all they know from Darwin and evolution is that it claims man descended from the apes and that God didn't create the world in seven days. Those expecting the movie to be an even-handed debate on the subject will be disappointed (I'm not sure an even-handed debate on the subject even exists though), as the movie takes the firm side of evolution. The Brady character can only yell and scream bible passages and call people sinners and blasphemers. But he's the level-headed creationist in the group, the real extremist comes in the form of the Reverend Jeremiah Brown (Claude Akins). He goes into ecstatic fits when condemning people to hell, especially when condemning his own daughter (Donna Anderson). But does he condemn her because he thinks her to be a sinner, or is it because he can't control her or the fact that she's in love with the wicked heathen school teacher (played by Dick York, TV's "Darrin" from "Bewitched"). Obviously, for a film made in 1960, this is pretty heavy stuff. It's not that faith is wrong, Drummond argues, but laws against thinking are. It's a timely and pointed reference to the blind "red" hysteria of the Joseph McCarthy era. Faith and science aren't mutually exclusive, but in a society where religious faith supercedes rational science and thought, where do we draw the line? Sadly, Inherit the Wind is just as relevant today as it was in 1960.

• Randy T

  
  <i>He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart</i> - Proverbs 11:29 In 1926, a Tennessee high school teacher named John Scopes was put on trial for teaching his students about Charles Darwin's theory of… More
  <i>He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart</i> - Proverbs 11:29 In 1926, a Tennessee high school teacher named John Scopes was put on trial for teaching his students about Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. <i>Inherit the Wind</i> is a highly fictionalized account of that trial. This film has a plethora of recognizable faces. Dick York, Harry Morgan and Claude Akins are wonderful, albeit one-dimensional, in their small roles. Gene Kelly and Fredric March are outstanding as supporting characters (though I did find March's poorly conceived makeup a constant distraction). But without question, the real draw here is Spencer Tracy. He's at the top of his game and this could arguably be the BEST performance of his long and lauded career. It's difficult to watch Tracy's courtroom monologs without turning to the person next to you and saying "Wow!" (In my case I turned to my cat, Val. He was not impressed.) *Interesting Side Note: The debate between evolutionists and creationists is still hotly contested, as witnessed by Ben Stein's 2008 satirical documentary <i>Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed</i>.

• Jennifer X

  
  Didactic, clumsy, and outdated. Simplifies the issue even though I agree with the pith of it, and focuses too much on the Bible part of the argument. I really like Gene Kelly but there is too much meaningless verbal sparring for this movie to be effective.

• Tom E

  
  This is one of the best trial/jury movies -- a real CLASSIC!

• Jeremy S

  
  "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." (Bible quote) What a controversially stunning film.

• Christopher M

  
  Here we have one of the all-time great court dramas adapted into a powerful, stirring film starring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. As play adaptations go you can't do much better. Inherit The Wind details an actual case from 1925 which put a Southern school teacher on trial… More
  Here we have one of the all-time great court dramas adapted into a powerful, stirring film starring Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. As play adaptations go you can't do much better. Inherit The Wind details an actual case from 1925 which put a Southern school teacher on trial for teaching his students the theory of evolution (there being a law against it). The whole town is drawn into a rabid frenzy as two great, legendary lawyers come to town: Matthew Harrison Brady, a boisterous, bloated religious fanatic, to prosecute, and Henry Drummond, an almost enigmatic Northern lawyer, to defend the young teacher. The film that ensues, an adaptation of a well-established American play, is a magnificent and rousing legal drama that belongs in the books right next to 12 Angry Men, which was also based on a classic American play. What's interesting about Inherit The Wind, and what separates it from most other court dramas, is that the trial is not over a typical "dramatic" crime like murder but a crime based on the ability of a man to express his own thoughts, which becomes a larger case about the basic question of how far can one take the words of the Christian bible (or any religious text for that matter) without reconciling it with the real world. It's an intriguing question resulting in an intriguing film which features two absolute heavyweight acting performances from Tracy and March. And their battle is just as powerful and thought provoking as that of Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb in 12 Angry Men. This is an immense American classic not to be missed.

• Michael G

  
  Amazing performances! Tracy plays his likable (and in this case tough) self, Fredric March plays a raving bible freak lunatic and Gene Kelly plays a cynical dick. You can't go wrong with this one. A frightening, well-written and incredible movie.

• xGary X

  
  Fascinating topic as the worlds of science and religion collide over the teaching of the theory of evolution in american schools. Very stagey but thought provoking without being judgemental, and Gene Kelly provides able support as a cynical reporter.

• Byron B

  
  The script is excellent in dealing with the issues. I really don't understand why this is still an issue, why people are still so ignorant?! I suppose like the movie shows through the creationists that the problem lies in overzealousness leading to hatred, a refusal to question… More
  The script is excellent in dealing with the issues. I really don't understand why this is still an issue, why people are still so ignorant?! I suppose like the movie shows through the creationists that the problem lies in overzealousness leading to hatred, a refusal to question old time beliefs and even open books with different ideas, and the desperate need to shout your opinion even louder when your ego and reputation are threatened. On the other hand, the muck-raking journalist played by Gene Kelly is a muck-raker. He is so snide and proud of himself, without hopes or dreams, and truly alone. I don't think people appreciate or have really listened to what Spencer Tracy's character has to say. He believes religion may appear golden on the outside, but is rotten inside. He fights for the right for people to think! He believes that there is probably some higher power or meaning to life, but not how Christians define those ideas, and that the Bible is a good book, but not the only book. He carries the Bible out of the court room with Darwin's book. The religious right think humans are sinful lesser forms of God, not much different from animals or the natural world in the way in which we are play things to God. The scientific left think humans have a higher form of reason, have made progress at understanding the world, and have the power to improve our fellow human relations. Now which one sees humans as being closer to monkeys? The title applies to the minister and Fredric March's character. One translation of the verse from Proverbs is "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." This is as opposed to inheriting the kingdom of heaven. When people are overzealous and hateful, refuse to question old-time beliefs or open books with different ideas, or bluster and shout more loudly when they are afraid of losing out to new ideas, they will inherit nothing but the wind!

• Burger S

  
  And we're still debating Evolution with Evangelists 50 years after the movie came out about a real event that was 80 years ago?

• Kyle M

  
  A very brave film.

Read all 15 featured audience ratings