|Page 2 of 6:||     |
|Index||59 matching reviews (160 reviews in total)|
If this was a fictional courtroom drama, it would be a great movie. However, it is meant to be a true retelling of actual historical events. It is nothing of the sort. Most of this movie is totally false and skewed to make the Christians look like witch burning idiots. Unfortunately, most of you will take this movie to be 100% fact and run with that. I challenge anyone who has watched this movie to search the web for the true history of the Scopes trial. This movie is nothing but pure fantasy/propaganda for atheists and Christophobes. If you are truly open minded and care about real history, look into it. You will be shocked at how false and misleading this movie is.
Inherit the Wind is biased, shameful, pro-Evolution propaganda.
The entire purpose of Inherit the Wind is to push the agenda that the theory of evolution is fact that should be taught in public schools. At the same time, Christianity is bashed in this movie and portrayed as wrong. Those who believe in Christianity in this movie are hatefully portrayed by the movie as idiots. The Atheist teacher who indoctrinates his students with Atheism & Evolution is portrayed as a hero and genius, as are all the other Atheists/Evolutionists in the movie. Inherit the Wind urges all it's viewers to take these sick 'lessons' to heart in real-life and hate & suppress Christians and any anyone who refuses to agree that Atheism and/or Evolution is correct and must be forced down everyone's throat against their will in schools.
In reality, the theory of evolution is not fact, never has been fact, and never will be fact. If anyone thinks Evolution is correct, that is only an *opinion.* The way Inherit the Wind serves as pro-Evolution propaganda is a disgrace and slap in the face to film-making, God, Christianity, and mankind as a species.
The fact that this movie and play is sometimes served up to unwitting students as a mandatory part of their public education is nothing short of disgusting! They want to brainwash the youths to hate Christianity and believe in Evolution, just like the "heroes" of the movie and play do. This is *not* educational, it's disgusting propaganda in it's worst form.
Inherit the Wind has the bald-faced *gall* to have a line spoken in the movie which says anyone who doesn't believe in Atheism & Evolution is dead. The strong, direct meaning of this line is that even while they are alive physically, they are 'brain-dead' for not accepting Atheism and Evolution. Could a movie *possibly* be any more disgusting and shameful propaganda? No, no it can't.
"Inherit the Wind" is a phrase taken directly from the Bible - a Holy Book which the movie bashes wickedly as much as it possibly can. The filmmakers/playwrights might have thought it was "funny" to title their movie after the words in the Bible, only to then viciously bash the Bible with the movie. It is doubtful though, that they *still* found it funny after their lives on Earth and run their natural course, and they came face to face with the God who they were so keen to bash and fight against by making this movie during their fleeting time on Earth. Inherit the Wind was made in 1960. It's now 2008. Using common sense, it's easy to figure out where the filmmakers/playwrights are now. And it's *not* in a happy place with a smile on their face for bashing God & Christianity in their brief moment on Earth when it was "funny" to do so.
Guess in the end, it goes to show that contrary to what Inherit the Wind claims, it's not those who believe in God and reject Evolution who are brain-dead after all.
I have seen this film about six times and my opinion as to its' quality
decreases with each viewing.
Frederic March over-acted in 'Best Years of Our Lives' (which, minus March, I would have given a '10') and does the same in 'Inherit The Wind.' He is a stage actor and old-school Rod Steiger. Spencer Tracy is from Milwaukee where people don't give a damn what others think about them or their city. His performance was superb as it was in all of his films.
Dick York was mis-cast as Cates (Scopes). He is a comedian who co-starred with Barbara Eden in 'Bewitched.' Harry Morgan was mis-cast as the judge (far too young for a God-fearing southern judge) and the sidekick to Jack Webb in 'Dragnet.' In 1960, movies began to be more realistic, yet the name of the the town and the characters' names were changed to protect the 'innocent.' Anyone with a brain knows the lawyers were William Jennings Bryant (prosecution) and Clarence Darrow (defense) and the teacher was named Scopes, not Cates. These scenarios make the film almost laughable. In fact, I look upon this film as a comedy 'teaser' except for the performance of Spencer Tracy. Gene Kelly, a great dancer and so-so actor, was entirely mis-cast as the Baltimore reporter.
Lastly, a belief or dis-belief in evolution is a matter of faith. A belief or dis-belief in God is a matter of faith. There is no right or wrong, but if there was no religion the world would be a much better place.
I know that many people have commented on this movie giving it rave reviews, but I really must disagree. I won't comment on the acting- It's personal opinion whether it's over the top, or realistic, or whatever- the court scenes are my main issue with the film. Throughout the movie, I found myself wondering how the two lawyers managed to get so high up in the business; they neglected to research their cases at all, and seemed to believe that the only measure of a good lawyer was how loud they could yell. In fact, they seemed to feel that they didn't even have to make a decent point as long as they were yelling. At one point, the lawyer played by Tracy tries to make a point, and sees that the jury does not understand... and then does not explain it. The lawyers also took to arguing between themselves in the middle of the courtroom- and the judge let them. Furthermore I felt that I could have done a better job defending the teacher, and I am not even close to being a lawyer. I'm sure this is a very well made movie, and the actors are certainly excellent... but to call it thought provoking and almost perfect is going too far.
The flaw permeating most reviews of this film is the tendency to
predominantly fall on one side or another on the philosophical and
scientific clash of facts, ideas, and beliefs.
Movies, quite literally, are an expression, and piece of art. A combination of talent brought together to create. That is the purpose of this account, not to judge on the basis of persuasion and the legislation of behavior and thought. But it is a review of this as just that, a movie.
As such it is a slick and standard production of a real life event. Two great and aging actors are brought together to perform and boy do they ever. It might even be accurate to say that they are above their game. That is to say, they both come very close to the edge and are in constant danger of plummeting to the depths of a ham-fisted Hell.
The religious hymns and popular songs are also used to such an extreme so that, unintentionally irritate rather than back-beat the proceedings and end up more of a brow beat. The assault on the senses does not stop there. Almost every character is so overblown and over baked with frantic speech and gestures that it is hard to take seriously.
This might work in a piece of satire or parody but is completely out of place, in a place, where serious cultural, scientific and philosophical ideas are intended to be debated. This would have been a much more effective piece of communicative art, and a lot more entertaining, if it had turned down the volume and toned down the baleful banter.
The film Inherit the Wind is an adaptation of a play of the same name that enjoyed some success on Broadway in the fifties. The movie version is respectful to its source, and I'm not sure why. As a play it wasn't much, and as a movie it is, well, not dull as dishwater but dreadfully mediocre, trying awfully hard to please everyone in the audience at once. Why try to please everyone,--or even anyone? Why not just make a good movie and let the chips fall where they may? As most people know the play and film were about the famous Tennessee 'monkey trial' in the twenties, when the forces of Good (the Bible thumpers) and the voice of Darwin (the pointy-headed intellctuals and city folk) came to blows in a small court-house. The former were represented by former presidential candidate and national icon William Jennings Bryan, while the latter were served by famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow. The issue was whether a high school teacher could intruct his pupils in the theory of evolution. A heated and bitter debate ensued between these two aging titans, and though he won, Bryan left courtroom a broken man and died shortly thereafter. The movie highlights the trial, and is at its best during the the exchanges between the Darrow and Bryan characters (the names were changed for legal reasons). Stanley Kramer produced and directed the film and is to blame for its poor quality. Kramer was in his heyday a daring producer, but never much of a director, and in this film his flaws are glaringly apparent. He has no feeling for the camera, no editing sense, he doesn't know how to build tension, has no sense of time or place, and he is blind to nuance and subtlety. This film is incredibly flat and obvious, and it's as preachy as old Bryan himself out on the Chatauqua circuit, though it offers a more 'enlightened' and 'thoughtful' viewpoint. Essentially one watches the film to see Bryan go down, just as in old-time melodramas one wanted to see the snarling villain get his just desserts, as they used to say. The acting is mostly pedestrian and uninteresting, and a lot of key supporting roles are weirdly miscast. Spencer Tracy performance as the Darrow character, though, is quite good, rising above both the script and the director's too-indulgent handling of his star. Tracy really rallied for this late entry in his canon, and while he's a far cry from the charming rogue he was twenty or thirty years earlier, he's still as charismatic as ever, always commanding and deserving of respect. Fredric March is a disaster as Bryan, and I wondered when watching his god-awful, hammy performance why he was ever thought of as a good let alone great actor. March is a Western Union actor, telegraphing and underlining each response to the action. His double-takes and the gurgling noises he frequently deploys are meant to indicate a.) confusion, and b.) insecurity. I found myeslf continually talking to him, saying things like, "Yes, Freddie old boy, we got it the first time". The same should have been said to Stanley Kramer when the film was being made, "Okay, Stan, I understand. We have to learn to trust one another and respect our differences". But in 1960, when the film was made, Hollywood was getting quite serious, even solemn about certain topics, tolerance being one of them. Inherit the Wind was a harbinger of the sort of movie soon to come,--To Kill a Mockingbird, Fail-Safe, The Best Man, The Birdman Of Alcatraz--and as such isn't even a very good example of its type, as unlike it successor films it has neither wit or even the faux-Bohemianism of these loping dinosaurs of the New Frontier and Great Society.
I've heard all the praise heaped on this movie, and it was the first American movie to win two awards at the Berlin Film Festival. For the life of me I don't understand why. The performances are overblown; the script is a mixture of speeches, sermons and cliches; the props look like they were made by a high school drama club; the sets look like Disneyland. The singing and music drive me insane about thirty minutes into the film. If you want to see a great courtroom movie from the sixties set in the old Deep South, you should rent "To Kill a Mockingbird".
There have been many movies with large parts set in Courtrooms , some good some not so good. But unquestionably this is the greatest. I could go on but just watch it to see . Stanley Kramers greatest movie, he made a few good ones, Spencer Tracy and Frederic March at their best. A great story and screenplay, emotion and passion that is real and relevant today. It should be shown in schools all over the world. With the religious forces particularly in the states still arguing their case against Darwin . It only needs this movie to convince any doubters about the bigotry of those who wish to prevent the Evoloution of man being taught.
This is the new PBS and ACLU anthem, the triumph of humanism over
stodgy old illogical unfair religion. I happened to see that it was
playing on our local PBS station yesterday, not too long after they
re-ran the embarrassing, hatchet-job NOVA show about creationism.
When I was a kid I loved this movie, it was so timely at the start of the 60s, it stood for the right to express logic over fantasy. But I don't think there's too many Christians around now that would claim the world was created in 7 standard days say 5,000 years ago, and I don't think the Darwinists back then said their beliefs were the only possible view on the subject, so the sides to this debate and the debate itself isn't what it used to be. Forget that as an explanation of animal and human development Darwinism has holes much bigger than creationism, and really has very little scientific evidence for the places people most want to take it. Darwinism is the politically correct un-truth of our time - an agenda you dare not disagree with even if where it's taken makes little sense and has very little scientific support. About as intellectually dishonest as the "facts" of this movie and the PBS/ACLU agenda on the subject (see danielpauldavis' excellent IMDb review, right below mine, on that).
If someone like John Thomas Scopes were alive today he would be a cause, not for teaching Darwin, but for teaching that creationism might just be one possible explanation for human development. Not exactly the triumph of free speech, logical scientific analysis, and the right to form your own opinion after fair and educated instruction. PRETTY IRONIC, EH?
It's religion vs. science in the courtroom after a small town teacher in the South is arrested for teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Based upon the Broadway play, which in turn was taken from a real-life news event. Spencer Tracy is ideally cast in the Clarence Darrow role of defense attorney, but Frederic March overplays terribly as prosecutor William Jennings Bryan (with different names). A surprising box-office failure which isn't boring, but neither is it subtle or very intriguing. Hyper, pushy and uncontrolled, it resembles a "Playhouse 90" TV drama as directed by an unskilled over-achiever (in this case, it's Stanley Kramer). Earns points for Tracy's panache and for Gene Kelly's offbeat casting as an acid-tongued reporter (it's one of his best pieces of acting). Remade for television in 1988 with Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards in the leads. ** from ****
|Page 2 of 6:||     |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|