Firstly, I do acknowledge and disclose I am biased in this argument, being an atheist born into a very religious family, but aren't all reviews biased and colored by the past experiences of the reviewer? There is no such thing as an impartial review, but I will try my best to.
In short, this was a perfect 10, an enlightening film that could have easily gotten a full 10 from me if not for the ending that seems to undermine itself and ruin the whole message of the film. By this, I do not mean the result of the legal suit.
I enjoyed the whole film, and it was near cathartic to hear the same frustrating answers given time and time again by every religion all over, be refuted. Henry Ian Cusick's acting was simply superb, and especially his (Frank's) speech where he claimed bad things happened to good people, vice versa, and that terrible things happened to innocent people, it was a sentiment I wholly agree with.
Moreover, the part where the brother accuses Frank's lawsuit as having worsened his niece's cancer, it shows the unshakable, and in my opinion, unhealthy belief borne from people who cling to the idea of an omnipotent benevolent deity who they look to when they feel helpless, and yet hypocritically blame every other person for acts of misfortune, or blessings in disguise. She had cancer since the beginning, but no, that wasn't God. The prayers hadn't worked, again, God is faultless. But the condition worsens and coincidentally her uncle was doing something considered heretical, the fault now lies with him for cancer, of all things. Would a merciful god kill an innocent child who is simply a relative of the wrongdoer, as punishment for the wrongdoer's sins? If indeed this is the work of an almighty entity and by design, is this not cruel, no matter how as priests claim, us mortals cannot understand the methodology of god? Is such a god, even if they exist, worthy of worship?
However, I do feel that the ending of this movie was somewhat self-undermining. No, I do not think he should have won against God, nor that it is even possible. It was simply a desperate move by somebody who did not care either way, who had, at the time of filing the suit, nothing to lose.
My issue with the ending is that right after him acknowledging that it may have been a blessing in disguise (which can be grudgingly acknowledged as he lost a pet and material possessions but this set off a chain of events that led him to meet the partner he loves and recover from his grief), his following point where he says he accepts that senseless grief still exists in this world, is completely destroyed. The girl cured of cancer, the dog Brutus somehow alive, him getting stabbed and not dying, all existing and past problems resolved by simply letting go of his fight against god. I certainly like this outcome better than one mired in tragedy as a person (who would want an innocent girl with cancer to die?), but as the ending of a movie, in my opinion, the complete lack of any tragedy or loss, (even the dog that apparently died magically revived), completely undermines his point of there being senseless tragedy in the world, if looking at the film as a representative microcosm. A story of reflection that should have brought mixed emotions, ended on such a happy note that is odd given the nature of the film. It's like somebody pouring pepper on otherwise perfect fluffy pancakes.
Also, does the niece being cured of cancer after the uncle stops fighting with God kind of low-key hint at God not killing her out of "divine retribution"? Or at least that would be how it would look to Frank's brother. But I suppose to the deeply religious, anything good that happens is surely god's gift, so it doesn't really matter.
In short, this was a perfect 10, an enlightening film that could have easily gotten a full 10 from me if not for the ending that seems to undermine itself and ruin the whole message of the film. By this, I do not mean the result of the legal suit.
I enjoyed the whole film, and it was near cathartic to hear the same frustrating answers given time and time again by every religion all over, be refuted. Henry Ian Cusick's acting was simply superb, and especially his (Frank's) speech where he claimed bad things happened to good people, vice versa, and that terrible things happened to innocent people, it was a sentiment I wholly agree with.
Moreover, the part where the brother accuses Frank's lawsuit as having worsened his niece's cancer, it shows the unshakable, and in my opinion, unhealthy belief borne from people who cling to the idea of an omnipotent benevolent deity who they look to when they feel helpless, and yet hypocritically blame every other person for acts of misfortune, or blessings in disguise. She had cancer since the beginning, but no, that wasn't God. The prayers hadn't worked, again, God is faultless. But the condition worsens and coincidentally her uncle was doing something considered heretical, the fault now lies with him for cancer, of all things. Would a merciful god kill an innocent child who is simply a relative of the wrongdoer, as punishment for the wrongdoer's sins? If indeed this is the work of an almighty entity and by design, is this not cruel, no matter how as priests claim, us mortals cannot understand the methodology of god? Is such a god, even if they exist, worthy of worship?
However, I do feel that the ending of this movie was somewhat self-undermining. No, I do not think he should have won against God, nor that it is even possible. It was simply a desperate move by somebody who did not care either way, who had, at the time of filing the suit, nothing to lose.
My issue with the ending is that right after him acknowledging that it may have been a blessing in disguise (which can be grudgingly acknowledged as he lost a pet and material possessions but this set off a chain of events that led him to meet the partner he loves and recover from his grief), his following point where he says he accepts that senseless grief still exists in this world, is completely destroyed. The girl cured of cancer, the dog Brutus somehow alive, him getting stabbed and not dying, all existing and past problems resolved by simply letting go of his fight against god. I certainly like this outcome better than one mired in tragedy as a person (who would want an innocent girl with cancer to die?), but as the ending of a movie, in my opinion, the complete lack of any tragedy or loss, (even the dog that apparently died magically revived), completely undermines his point of there being senseless tragedy in the world, if looking at the film as a representative microcosm. A story of reflection that should have brought mixed emotions, ended on such a happy note that is odd given the nature of the film. It's like somebody pouring pepper on otherwise perfect fluffy pancakes.
Also, does the niece being cured of cancer after the uncle stops fighting with God kind of low-key hint at God not killing her out of "divine retribution"? Or at least that would be how it would look to Frank's brother. But I suppose to the deeply religious, anything good that happens is surely god's gift, so it doesn't really matter.