Inherit the Wind (1960)

3/5

Inherit the Wind is a good movie based on a good play, but it's not great. Following the minutiae of the sensational Scopes monkey trial, it feels somewhat dated. The best part about it was the amazing acting by Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly. I didn't get much more out of it except a few good lines, a couple good laughs, and some neat cinematography. The rest just failed to impress. It may have been because I directed the play in high school and was already very familiar with the material; the movie to me was just the sum of the cinematic qualities distinct and separate from the story and message. As with Crash, the point the movie seemed to be making was the equality of all (in this case to be able to think). Both Haggis in Crash and Kramer here failed in their filmmaking because they bias the movies. Kramer very evidently takes the side of the evolutionists and makes the fundamentalists laughable. Brady should have been more of a commanding presence than a farcical caricature; Drummond always struck me as a little meaner and more arrogant than he's presented here. The editing was uninspired and common. I hated the music so much; it was pedestrian and irritating. Overall though, an interesting piece and recommended if you know nothing about the movie or are interested in the Scopes monkey trial, but it doesn't stand well to repeat viewings.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0053946/

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

4/5

First off, the acting in this movie by Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, and Burt Lancaster is unforgettable. The dialogue in the script is spot-on; sensational when need be, understated at other times. The ending is phenomenal, and utterly uncompromising in its verdict. The power is amplified by the uncertainty and moral ambiguity present up until the finale. It could get surprisingly emotional and devastatingly powerful at times. It grips you from the start and never lets you go, even after the screen blackens.

Stanley Kramer doesn't know how to direct worth crap. The camera movements and shot composition were so ludicrous, unnatural, and just plain ugly, it distracted tremendously from the most impressive components (story and acting). Although, by setting practically the entire movie in a courtroom, he set himself up for disaster. He had two options: either create artificial camera movements or use extremely stale, stationary shots. He unfortunately chose the former, but even if he had chosen the latter, it wouldn't have been much better because the editing was terrible. On that note, it's unnecessarily long; nothing is gained by the extraneous scenes that neither flesh out characters nor progress the plot. Also, repetition to ensure understanding of the theme is, as I've always stated, insulting to the viewers. Luckily, it doesn't occur very often. But when it does happen, it's especially heinous and cringe-inducing. For example, some minor characters were introduced for the sole purpose of bluntly reiterating a point that had already been made subtly. Speaking of characters, some were dealt with extremely poorly (forgotten or introduced at the very end), especially in comparison to the main ones. Others were extremely stereotyped and not really fleshed out at all (Richard Widmark's characters, for example). But really, imagine how amazing the rest of this movie must be for me to be able to look past all those negatives and still give it a four; I highly recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0055031/