I think most people coming to see this version of the cinematic re-imagining of the historic Scopes Monkey Trial will have already seen the original 1960 version, starring (and they really are the starring roles, as opposed to Bertram Kates or Rachel Brown) Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond and Frederick March as Mathew Harrison Brady.
I'm not a giant fan of re-makes; for the most part I think they're just an easy way for filmmakers to generate some money when they don't have any new ideas. After all, if a movie's already been made, why on earth SHOULD you make it again? But none the less, remakes DO get made, and I do enjoy some of them.
Stanley Kramer directed the 1960 version of Inherit the wind, and Daniel Petrie version made this, the colour 1999 version; which one's better? Well, in my opinion, they both have their ups and down.I feel a little unqualified speaking about the Kramer version, as it's been a long time since I saw it and I don't have all the details fresh in my mind. But I recall watching it again after hearing criticism of the Petrie remake, and wondering just WHY the new one was being criticized so harshly, as they both seemed similar, with barely any differences bar the change of cast. So, if critiques have to be made, it must be about the actors.In this version, I wasn't entirely convinced by Scott, playing Bertram Kates. He seemed a little too starry-eyed in every scene, delivering his lines with the same airy reverence you'd speak historic quotes; fine for anyone quoting lines like "They were meant to be questions, questions you ask yourself" but not so fine for the person actually meant to be saying them.
Morris, playing Rachel Brown, I thought looked... Well, a little too fragile. I don't remember how she was portrayed in the Kramer version, but in this one she looked ready to explode into tears in every scene, not just the one she actually did in. Her father was a little overdramatic, and I think we were being played, as an audience, the director trying a little too hard to make us say "Look at the evil religious dictator! Religion is evil!"
But getting back to the big stars; George C Scott as Mathew Harrison Brady, I thought, was perfect. Frederick March did a grand job in the original, but George Scott had acting oozing out of every pore every time the camera was on him. I remember Spencer Tracy less well, but I recall liking the whole of the original, so I'm going to assume I liked the work he did there as well. Jack Lemmon was good here, no big complaints, except the vast amounts of sweating going on in the courtroom made him look a little too tired, and not nearly as strong a presence as George Scott.All in all, compared to the original, I'd probably have to award the original as the winner, simply because it was the original, it actually did it first, and this one just did what had already been done, with colour film and different actors. But on its own merit, the Petrie remake is a good film, very worth watching if you're of a younger generation that's never seen the original and has an aversion to monochrome. While certainly a dramatization, with a change of names from the historical persons, it's very much a history lesson, at the least inspiring you to ask "Wow, did all this REALLY happen?" subsequently rushing off to wikipedia to confirm.
So, with all that in mind, I'm going to give this a four-star rating; minus one for the sin of not actually being an original film.

This is not the forum for ideologies to be discussed but for reviews of the movie.
Further I will make no spoiler alert regarding the film, but some may feel a spoiler based on their image of the actors I will discuss in my review.
In that respect, having read the book and the play based on the book, having seen the black and white version with Fredric March and Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly in a non dancing role, Harry Morgan before he was Col. Harry Potter and a young Dick York before he was Darren Stevens on Bewitched, but mostly because I have read the actual transcript of the trial as it is available online, I believe I can speak with some sincerity as a student of this story.
This version of Inherit The Wind is a quality work of the filmakers art. It is truer to the book, has more of the characters of the play, and I believe it is a fine homage to the black and white film.
The lead actors of course are headliners, having numerous quality performances on both of their resumes. George C. Scott delivers his oratories in fine style, embodying the sense of character I believe the author envisioned. Jack Lemmon also offers a fine performance as the opposing attorney, bringing a broader sense of humaness to the portrayal than that of the great Spencer Tracy in the same role.
Still the other actors all do well in their portrayals. Piper Laurie brings a wider sense of the caring wife to the story than I remember from the B&W version. And Lane Smith's portrayal of the personal trauma experienced by the Reverend Brown is truly an emotional rollercoaster as one tries to both sympathize and empathize with his dilema. Regretfully I didn't get that from Claude Akins in this role. And while I like Mr Akins' work in his many films, he seemed too stoic in comparison to Mr Smith. John Callum as the judge is more of a professional judge to me compared to Harry Morgan who I expected to be the comic relief as he does so well in his numerous film and TV appearances.
In consideration of the passion with which the story is delivered in this film while remaining true to the author's intent from the book I would rate this film among the best of television productions and recommend it highly for fellow students of this story and it's genre.

God created evolution...fact is no matter how far back you take history of time as we know it..from the Big Bang to the build up of inert gases that led up the big bang or the smallest molecules or cells that led to the gases..the question will remain what created the cell, atom, molecule whatever that grew to this present day multiverse as we know it. The answer as accepted by most scientists is by whatever name you call it this multiverse and everything in it is constructed through intelligent design. There is a creator, by whatever name you refer it to is up to you but this power should be respected. Christians base their beliefs by faith and it is not needed to be proved by any man for the faith is inherent. The belief in Elohim, Abba is instilled in all and reveals Himself through ways in which we develop our relationship with our creator. If you do not exercise your relationship with Him it will remain stagnant until one is willing to allow wisdom to supersede knowledge of self. It is okay to want to know the origin of everything but to say there is no God is foolish for no scientist can prove that He does not exist but moreover offer more proof that He just might. Isiah 44 long before Christopher Columbus set sail clearly stated that "He sitteth upon the circle of the Earth"....The mentioning of great beasts that roamed the Earth in the beginning suggests that it was possible dinosaurs existed..the bible never claims they didn't...just something to consider! This movie would have been better if the Christian belief was presented more intelligently than relying on the typical hum haw approach. But the great thing about being a Christian is that we do not need to prove a thing..the creations around us offer proof enough!

As a Christian, I find this horribly embarrassing. I'm not for evolution in any sense, but these Christians are portrayed as ignorant and closed-minded, showing no grace, offering no understanding, nor freedom for those who may feel differently. God is a God of freedom, love and grace. He offers us all the choice. This is why we should not punish those with opposing views, only be gracious in sharing our own beliefs, and through love, maybe they will be willing to look into another viewpoint. This applies now in the opposite direction. Today we are being forced to learn evolution with teachers losing their jobs for teaching Creation. It's the same tragedy, the tables have just been turned. I still plead with the people for open minds and freedom of learning. Show us both sides, let our brains do what they were meant to do. Let us learn to think.

... and I believe it is truly emblematic of the hearts and minds of the majority of the people of this once great nation. Unfortunately, they will probably never comprehend the reasons that its best days are now behind. That is lamentable.