Billy Connolly plays a fisherman living in Australia, having given up law out of frustration with the system'. When a freak of lightning wipes out his small fishing boat and the insurance companies refuse to pay (as it's an act of God') he takes up law again to take on the system, the legal fiction, the churches and the big insurance companies. Although it's title and trailer maybe suggest a mindless slapstick (and it contains a fair amount of this), the film actually delivers something more mentally challenging and is successfully entertaining by dint of hard work on an initial premises rather than any series of fast jokes. Interesting conundrums about class actions, legal liability and the legal ramifications of the existence or non-existence of God' abound, and the lead characters demonstrate a humanity that makes the comedy all the more touching.
41 Reviews
Good premise, but it backs out at the end
mjw230522 January 2007
Aside from it's flaws i did enjoy this movie a great deal, the story builds nicely and Billy Connolly holds together the plot despite the delicacy of the premise and the flaws in the script.
As a comedy it is well worth watching, it's crammed with subtle humour throughout; it's also enjoyable as a romance, again it's subtle, but it's steady and quite heartwarming, despite the clichés.
The story itself is very intriguing, it successfully provokes your thoughts and captures your imagination with interesting questions; but it fails to draw sufficient conclusion at the finale, and it did feel like a bit of a let down.
6/10 It's still worth watching.
As a comedy it is well worth watching, it's crammed with subtle humour throughout; it's also enjoyable as a romance, again it's subtle, but it's steady and quite heartwarming, despite the clichés.
The story itself is very intriguing, it successfully provokes your thoughts and captures your imagination with interesting questions; but it fails to draw sufficient conclusion at the finale, and it did feel like a bit of a let down.
6/10 It's still worth watching.
what was the fuss about
anglegrinder2 November 2001
I went to see this film following 3 favourable reviews on Urban Cinefile. Personally, I thought the film was pretty average. Its a courtroom drama that (in most cases) avoids the cliches of the genre. The editing seemed choppy to me; camera work was claustrophobic. It deals with religious issues well, and raises some questions about insurance industry practices. Billy connoly is great, as is judy davis (as always). nothing spectacular here though...
Brilliant Performance by Connolly saves flawed film
JoeMiddletonAlba12 October 2003
Firstly, I did enjoy 'The man who sued God'. Billy Connolly is excellent, his wit and charm is on display throughout the film and it is very, very, funny, most of the time.
Unfortunately it is slightly too long and there are a few bits that could have been quite easily cut without harming the story.
Billy seems to spend an awful lot of time mooning around churches and the 'divine intervention' bit is embarassingly bad and entirely unnecessary. Quite frankly, whoever came up with this scene should be shot!
However having said that the film does have many qualities. The scenery is fantastic and the cast are generally excelent. Judy Davis is very good as the journo who takes an interest in Connolly's case. She strikes some nice romantic sparks of Connolly who is in great, swearing, ranting mode throughout. Colin Friels is also pretty good as Connolly's brother and Wendy Hughes is nice as the prickly but understanding ex-wife.
I can't imagine many Jews would be too pleased with the portrayal of the Rabbi "So, we just prove there is no God, ...who cares!" seems to be his attitude, but generally the film is pretty amusing with an interesting premise.
As I say there is at lease one totally shoddy scene and some unnecessary wandering that could have been fixed by a decent editor but still, if not a classic, still a genuinely funny film and well worth seeing.
By the way Connolly gives a fantastic (and quite different) acting performance as an ex-con artist in the Debt Collecter (1999). Get a hold of this Scottish thriller if you are a Connolly fan as it is absolutely brilliant.
Unfortunately it is slightly too long and there are a few bits that could have been quite easily cut without harming the story.
Billy seems to spend an awful lot of time mooning around churches and the 'divine intervention' bit is embarassingly bad and entirely unnecessary. Quite frankly, whoever came up with this scene should be shot!
However having said that the film does have many qualities. The scenery is fantastic and the cast are generally excelent. Judy Davis is very good as the journo who takes an interest in Connolly's case. She strikes some nice romantic sparks of Connolly who is in great, swearing, ranting mode throughout. Colin Friels is also pretty good as Connolly's brother and Wendy Hughes is nice as the prickly but understanding ex-wife.
I can't imagine many Jews would be too pleased with the portrayal of the Rabbi "So, we just prove there is no God, ...who cares!" seems to be his attitude, but generally the film is pretty amusing with an interesting premise.
As I say there is at lease one totally shoddy scene and some unnecessary wandering that could have been fixed by a decent editor but still, if not a classic, still a genuinely funny film and well worth seeing.
By the way Connolly gives a fantastic (and quite different) acting performance as an ex-con artist in the Debt Collecter (1999). Get a hold of this Scottish thriller if you are a Connolly fan as it is absolutely brilliant.
A clever, simple premise you wish you'd thought of yourself...
quatermax-18 February 2008
Scottish stand up comedian Billy Connolly (recently featured in The Last Samurai) plays divorced and disillusioned ex-lawyer Steve Myers, who now whiles away his time on a fishing boat in New South Wales, Australia. One afternoon his boat, which is now basically his life, is destroyed by a bolt of lightning, which also results in a chard of the hull being embedded in his foot. On crutches he approaches his insurance company who refuse to pay as the incident is deemed an 'Act of God'. Connolly's traditional Celtic brand of outrageous, yet amusing, expletives result in his being carried unceremoniously out of the building. Undeterred by this he decides to challenge the very meaning of the term 'Act of God', which by it's very nature determines that someone (in this case God) is responsible, and if someone (God) is responsible then they (or He) can therefore be sued
or at least their (or His) representatives can. The subsequent court case generates a media storm as Myers, a not unaccomplished and uncharismatic courtroom tactician, initially runs rings around his opponents. Thus begins the David and Goliath battle between the little man and the formidable powers of the Church and the massive legal and insurance firms in their employ. Myers also gathers 800 or so co-plaintiffs, all victims of the 'Act of God' clause, to support him in his case. It eventually gets to the point where it looks like the only way the church are going to win their case is to prove that God doesn't exist. It's a clever, simple premise and one you wish you'd thought of yourself.
It's no coincidence that Connolly's character is a fisherman, or even a fisher of men, and that his beef is with the corrupt insurance companies representing an apparently corrupt church. If it was suddenly discovered that Christ was Scottish, then it would have been Connolly calming the storm out on the Sea of Galilee, and Connolly who threw the moneylenders out of His Father's house, and, hirsute and ranting as he is in this movie, impressive he would have been too. Billy Connolly as Christ now that would even give Mel Gibson a run for his money I bet he'd be great at parting the Red Sea oh, no, that was Moses wasn't it. Never mind, he could play that role too (nobody seems to worry about accents in movies anyway) and in fact he almost pleads to the court on behalf of his co-plaintiffs 'Let my people go', or rather 'Give my people their money you bastards', but with a smile and a twinkle in the eye that only Connolly can get away with well, him and Sean Connery. Why haven't they been teamed up in a movie? It seems like a match made in Heaven to me.
There are many storms brewing toward the end of the film; Religious zealots surround the courthouse hurling abuse at the blasphemer Myers; Myers can't afford to lose the case; the lawyers can't afford to either, nor can the church, and there's also a mighty wind storm approaching the town bringing forest fires and floods (and no doubt frogs, plague and locusts) with it. Needless to say it's a happy ending, the lawyers and the church get their knuckles rapped, the image of God remains untarnished (of course), Myers gets the girl and the zealots go home sulking and dragging their large wooden cross with them in another Christ reference.
It's a refreshing film, as most Australian movies are. There's great attention to character and background detail. Connolly (Water, Mrs. Brown, Muppet Treasure Island, Boondock Saints, Timeline), undoubtedly a talented actor and comedian, is obviously cast for distribution purposes (Myers isn't a particularly Scottish name after all) and seems a little out of place in the Australian backdrop, but his rants are very funny. Veteran and versatile Australian actress Judy Davis (Deconstructing Harry, Celebrity, Absolute Power, The Reagans), as Myers' journalistic co-conspirator and love interest, is subject to some slapstick humour as a drunken and literally legless Myers wrecks a restaurant, and the excellent supporting cast are all the more convincing for their unfamiliarity.
It's no coincidence that Connolly's character is a fisherman, or even a fisher of men, and that his beef is with the corrupt insurance companies representing an apparently corrupt church. If it was suddenly discovered that Christ was Scottish, then it would have been Connolly calming the storm out on the Sea of Galilee, and Connolly who threw the moneylenders out of His Father's house, and, hirsute and ranting as he is in this movie, impressive he would have been too. Billy Connolly as Christ now that would even give Mel Gibson a run for his money I bet he'd be great at parting the Red Sea oh, no, that was Moses wasn't it. Never mind, he could play that role too (nobody seems to worry about accents in movies anyway) and in fact he almost pleads to the court on behalf of his co-plaintiffs 'Let my people go', or rather 'Give my people their money you bastards', but with a smile and a twinkle in the eye that only Connolly can get away with well, him and Sean Connery. Why haven't they been teamed up in a movie? It seems like a match made in Heaven to me.
There are many storms brewing toward the end of the film; Religious zealots surround the courthouse hurling abuse at the blasphemer Myers; Myers can't afford to lose the case; the lawyers can't afford to either, nor can the church, and there's also a mighty wind storm approaching the town bringing forest fires and floods (and no doubt frogs, plague and locusts) with it. Needless to say it's a happy ending, the lawyers and the church get their knuckles rapped, the image of God remains untarnished (of course), Myers gets the girl and the zealots go home sulking and dragging their large wooden cross with them in another Christ reference.
It's a refreshing film, as most Australian movies are. There's great attention to character and background detail. Connolly (Water, Mrs. Brown, Muppet Treasure Island, Boondock Saints, Timeline), undoubtedly a talented actor and comedian, is obviously cast for distribution purposes (Myers isn't a particularly Scottish name after all) and seems a little out of place in the Australian backdrop, but his rants are very funny. Veteran and versatile Australian actress Judy Davis (Deconstructing Harry, Celebrity, Absolute Power, The Reagans), as Myers' journalistic co-conspirator and love interest, is subject to some slapstick humour as a drunken and literally legless Myers wrecks a restaurant, and the excellent supporting cast are all the more convincing for their unfamiliarity.
Broken Promises
dromasca31 October 2003
This film holds some good promises - It has an original idea and a good cast. It succeeds to keep the interest alive for more than half a story, and than it suddenly falls in routine and cheap moralization. Instead of continuing the rather challenging line of revealing the lies of institutionalized religion with humor, it falls into 'revelation' cinema. Quite a disappointment!
9 for the first half, 5 for the second - the average is a 7 on my personal scale.
9 for the first half, 5 for the second - the average is a 7 on my personal scale.
Typical Connolly Fare
Ulleskelf31 August 2003
The story's an excellent one. A fisherman see his boat get hit by lightning, but the insurance company won't pay up as they call it an "Act Of God", so he decides to sue God - well the leaders of the churches, anyway.
I wish Billy Connolly would play less roles where he's called upon to be Billy Connolly, where there's no at all the swearing and being Scottish - he can be a really good actor, and he sort of is in this. Judy Davis, however, isn't convincing, but I'm sure that's the fault of the role or the writing, rather than Ms Davis herself.
At first thought, the ending seems to be very Hollywood, but in the time since I saw the film, it would appear that perhaps it was the best possible conclusion. The two other possible endings - one would have been even more Hollywood and the other one would have been a disappointment.
(And on a minor point, I think this was the first time I've ever seen a movie or TV show set in Sydney that didn't go for the stock cliche of shots of the Harbour Bridge and/or the Opera House - kudos to the writers for not being formulaic in that respect).
I wish Billy Connolly would play less roles where he's called upon to be Billy Connolly, where there's no at all the swearing and being Scottish - he can be a really good actor, and he sort of is in this. Judy Davis, however, isn't convincing, but I'm sure that's the fault of the role or the writing, rather than Ms Davis herself.
At first thought, the ending seems to be very Hollywood, but in the time since I saw the film, it would appear that perhaps it was the best possible conclusion. The two other possible endings - one would have been even more Hollywood and the other one would have been a disappointment.
(And on a minor point, I think this was the first time I've ever seen a movie or TV show set in Sydney that didn't go for the stock cliche of shots of the Harbour Bridge and/or the Opera House - kudos to the writers for not being formulaic in that respect).
It was good
dmeshkov27 October 2001
Man Who Sued God was entertaining and a good movie to see with a good friend. The plot is clever, actually the entire movie is clever. Some parts of the plot were a little unclear or assumed but still it was a good time.
Great movie
bohicaranch28 November 2008
Everyone seems to be taking this movie waaaaaaay too seriously. Billy Connolly is terrific and the story is wonderful. A great feel good movie and except for the non-stop obscenities, would be a great family film. Terrific writing and great delivery. It's not meant to be an academy award winning drama...it's a comedy for heaven's sake. I never even knew who Billy Connolly was, and now I'm a fan. He's irreverent and incredibly funny, kind of like a Scottish George Carlin. People are complaining about the end, but even though it's a little hokey, it's still enjoyable. If you want to watch a movie with an unbelievably bad ending, watch Russel Crowe in 3:10 to Yuma. Now there's a bad ending.
If there's one thing I can't stand it's grovelling
Brad_Harmer11 May 2004
Movie Review: The Man Who Sued God
Directed By: Mark Joffe
Written By: Don Watson and John Clarke
Starring: Billy Connolly, Judy Davis, Colin Friels, Wendy Hughes and Bille Brown.
The very concept of the movie and the bold title alone would seem to be enough to trigger off a political and religious minefield. As it is, the concept is very carefully handled to be inconclusive and theoretical. Connolly is careful to point out that he is not suing God himself, but rather the very idea of an Act of God as an insurance get-out clause. Connolly, after being told by the insurance company that lightning striking his boat was an act of God, takes the logical course and attempts to sue God.
This, at its core, is a very simple romantic-comedy/family-movie with very simple laughs. There is no deep or intelligent humour to this. All the laughs either come from swearing laced outbursts from Connolly, or from people falling over. This is simple, yet effective, and Connolly is on high-form throughout. Your mother will really love this film, especially if they are fans of Connolly, as mine is. Connolly is not only an outstanding comedian, but also a formidable actor, as he proved in Mrs. Brown and continues here.
The inevitable romance in this romantic comedy is seemingly dropped in from out of nowhere, with the deus ex machina clanking loudly towards the end. There is no real build up or detailed characterisation for why the two characters should finally become an item, we are merely meant to accept it as it is. This is ultimately unsatisfying.
The character development for Connolly himself is well handled, and the way he changes from an extremely annoyed lawyer turned fisherman into a calm, cool and collected gentleman is handled well. His relationship with Arthur (the dog) provides much of the humour and sentimentality for the character, as does his relationship with his ex-wife (Wendy Hughes), Anna Redmond (Judy Davis) and his brother, David (Colin Friels). The writing and performance on all sides is excellent, and commendations to all involved.
Ultimately, this is something of a love-story by the numbers, but the very idea of a man suing God gives the old story and plot something new. The ludicrousness of the case and the larger than life characters make this film worth viewing. Also the political and theological hot-bed it opens up with leave you with something to think about and discuss long after the movie has ended.
STORY: 8/10 DIRECTION: 5/10 PERFORMANCE: 8/10 OVERALL: 7/10
RECOMMENDED TO: Mothers, aunties and people who like Connolly.
DON'T WATCH WITH: Catholic priests, insurance workers or God.
Directed By: Mark Joffe
Written By: Don Watson and John Clarke
Starring: Billy Connolly, Judy Davis, Colin Friels, Wendy Hughes and Bille Brown.
The very concept of the movie and the bold title alone would seem to be enough to trigger off a political and religious minefield. As it is, the concept is very carefully handled to be inconclusive and theoretical. Connolly is careful to point out that he is not suing God himself, but rather the very idea of an Act of God as an insurance get-out clause. Connolly, after being told by the insurance company that lightning striking his boat was an act of God, takes the logical course and attempts to sue God.
This, at its core, is a very simple romantic-comedy/family-movie with very simple laughs. There is no deep or intelligent humour to this. All the laughs either come from swearing laced outbursts from Connolly, or from people falling over. This is simple, yet effective, and Connolly is on high-form throughout. Your mother will really love this film, especially if they are fans of Connolly, as mine is. Connolly is not only an outstanding comedian, but also a formidable actor, as he proved in Mrs. Brown and continues here.
The inevitable romance in this romantic comedy is seemingly dropped in from out of nowhere, with the deus ex machina clanking loudly towards the end. There is no real build up or detailed characterisation for why the two characters should finally become an item, we are merely meant to accept it as it is. This is ultimately unsatisfying.
The character development for Connolly himself is well handled, and the way he changes from an extremely annoyed lawyer turned fisherman into a calm, cool and collected gentleman is handled well. His relationship with Arthur (the dog) provides much of the humour and sentimentality for the character, as does his relationship with his ex-wife (Wendy Hughes), Anna Redmond (Judy Davis) and his brother, David (Colin Friels). The writing and performance on all sides is excellent, and commendations to all involved.
Ultimately, this is something of a love-story by the numbers, but the very idea of a man suing God gives the old story and plot something new. The ludicrousness of the case and the larger than life characters make this film worth viewing. Also the political and theological hot-bed it opens up with leave you with something to think about and discuss long after the movie has ended.
STORY: 8/10 DIRECTION: 5/10 PERFORMANCE: 8/10 OVERALL: 7/10
RECOMMENDED TO: Mothers, aunties and people who like Connolly.
DON'T WATCH WITH: Catholic priests, insurance workers or God.
Raises conflict and then backs out shamefully
Napoleon Wilson25 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Although this was never breathtaking or outstanding it had it's merits before the contrived ending. Actually the first half hour is watchable though full of clichés, but Billy Connolly makes it work. When he sues god it actually makes sense at first. But when the courtroom drama really begins, nothing makes sense anymore. The exchanged dialogue adds no new insight and the final speech by Connolly is nothing but bad. It's as if the screenwriter found an interesting question but couldn't think of an answer.
SPOILER
"I cannot sue god, cause god is love." What? The film goes right down the toilet. Why should anyone watch this?
SPOILER
"I cannot sue god, cause god is love." What? The film goes right down the toilet. Why should anyone watch this?
Wow. Interesting.
Yak-621 November 2001
"The Man Who Sued God" - well, right from the start, it's an attention-grabbing name.
The story of retired lawyer Steve Myers (Billy Connolly), whose boat is struck by lightning and, well, he wouldn't beat the insurance companies, so theres gotta be _someone_ to sue, is... interesting to say the least. Connolly and Judy Davis are great, Billy in particular being roaringly funny at some points. Although for all its funniness the film raises some interesting questions as well, like: can the churches sue insurance companies for "breach of copyright" on the phrase "Acts of God"?
A great film.
The story of retired lawyer Steve Myers (Billy Connolly), whose boat is struck by lightning and, well, he wouldn't beat the insurance companies, so theres gotta be _someone_ to sue, is... interesting to say the least. Connolly and Judy Davis are great, Billy in particular being roaringly funny at some points. Although for all its funniness the film raises some interesting questions as well, like: can the churches sue insurance companies for "breach of copyright" on the phrase "Acts of God"?
A great film.
Funny premise, creatively executed
lethalweapon6 December 2012
Steve Myers was a good lawyer who quit his practice to become a lousy fisherman. His fishing boat is struck by lighting and explodes to pieces. When he tries to claim insurance, the insurance company denies it on the grounds that they don't cover 'Acts of God'.
Frustrated at not getting anywhere with the insurance companies, he files a suit against God, naming church officials as representatives of God. This gets the attention of the media and escalates the drama further. It gets to a point that the church representatives have to either compensate for his loss or deny the existence of God.
It's a funny and creative premise, which was expanded and revamped in 2012's Hindi remake 'OMG- Oh My God'. Despite a lackluster finish, it is thoroughly enjoyable.
Frustrated at not getting anywhere with the insurance companies, he files a suit against God, naming church officials as representatives of God. This gets the attention of the media and escalates the drama further. It gets to a point that the church representatives have to either compensate for his loss or deny the existence of God.
It's a funny and creative premise, which was expanded and revamped in 2012's Hindi remake 'OMG- Oh My God'. Despite a lackluster finish, it is thoroughly enjoyable.
Oh my God, NO.
lysterbird5 November 2003
Why does everyone always duck out of knocking organised religion.
Started up slowly, but pleasently enough. Then, just when you think it might go somewhere, might have something to say, it chooses the most outrageously conceited ending in the history of film.
Never cringed so much in my life.
The Life of Brian, now there's a movie.
Ciao.
Started up slowly, but pleasently enough. Then, just when you think it might go somewhere, might have something to say, it chooses the most outrageously conceited ending in the history of film.
Never cringed so much in my life.
The Life of Brian, now there's a movie.
Ciao.
It's a drama with comedic moments and a romantic element, in a warm and compact package, which is a good thing.
email-9929 September 2003
When events happen that are not within predictable range, and there seems nothing for it but accept it as an act of god, many people accept it as inevitable. That's well and good for little things, but not when the event is ruinous, destructive or major. And especially when it's an event that causes a loss' where that loss was covered by insurance.
That sort of loss befell our man, played with insight, verve and delicacy by Billy Connolly, in 'The Man Who Sued God'. What's important about this movie is that it's not about Billy Connolly, it's not him mugging for the camera and pulling stunts. It's a drama about a man in a tough situation, with romantic and comedic elements included. It's well written, played with truth and energy by the entire cast, and shot vividly, both for the exterior scenes of 'beautiful OZ', and the interiors, where so much of the action takes place.
He's just had his fishing boat blown out of the water by a direct hit from lightening, and it's all covered by insurance. Until the small print comes into play, and the company refuses to pay, saying that the lightning strike was an act of God. There is no other recourse than the Courts, and our man sues God for the loss of his boat and livelihood.
He sues all denominations of religion, as the servants and agents of God on Earth, and they all hire lawyers. It begins to look a bit like 'The Verdict' for a while, but the interplay between the different religions turns the action from that path, prior to deja vu setting in. There's courtroom drama that rings true, and interpersonal that carries the story forward without resorting to artificial devices. It's a drama with comedic moments and a romantic element, in a warm and compact package, which is a good thing.
All in all, a feel-good movie without the smarminess -you can feel good about liking this one.
That sort of loss befell our man, played with insight, verve and delicacy by Billy Connolly, in 'The Man Who Sued God'. What's important about this movie is that it's not about Billy Connolly, it's not him mugging for the camera and pulling stunts. It's a drama about a man in a tough situation, with romantic and comedic elements included. It's well written, played with truth and energy by the entire cast, and shot vividly, both for the exterior scenes of 'beautiful OZ', and the interiors, where so much of the action takes place.
He's just had his fishing boat blown out of the water by a direct hit from lightening, and it's all covered by insurance. Until the small print comes into play, and the company refuses to pay, saying that the lightning strike was an act of God. There is no other recourse than the Courts, and our man sues God for the loss of his boat and livelihood.
He sues all denominations of religion, as the servants and agents of God on Earth, and they all hire lawyers. It begins to look a bit like 'The Verdict' for a while, but the interplay between the different religions turns the action from that path, prior to deja vu setting in. There's courtroom drama that rings true, and interpersonal that carries the story forward without resorting to artificial devices. It's a drama with comedic moments and a romantic element, in a warm and compact package, which is a good thing.
All in all, a feel-good movie without the smarminess -you can feel good about liking this one.
Not quite there
neil-4767 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I wanted to like this more than I did.
Using the comedy/drama form, this moderately engaging little movie poses some interesting question, and then fails to address them - or, more exactly, decides to opt out of presenting the audience with any conclusion. To some extent this is having your cake and eating it - you offend neither end of the theological debate. However, it left me feeling slightly short-changed.
Among a number of plot points which creaked somewhat, I question Colin Friels' brother - ready to betray his brother for a promotion bribe one minute, and then taking up management of a class action against the briber/s the next.
My biggest quibble, though, is with the casting of the two principals. Connolly, a very talented actor, played the whole thing with a degree of high amusement which I found highly improbable given the financial disaster which was staring him and his nearest and dearest in the face. I'm not sure whether this was his fault or the director's. And his broad Scots accent meant that Colin Friels had to adopt a Scots accent (native, apparently), which failed to convince throughout.
And Judy Davies, never one of my favourite actresses, totally failed to convince in a role which demanded someone light and frothy. She plays angry and heavy very well, but does not appear to have the deftness of touch which this role demanded, pratfall into the sea notwithstanding.
Using the comedy/drama form, this moderately engaging little movie poses some interesting question, and then fails to address them - or, more exactly, decides to opt out of presenting the audience with any conclusion. To some extent this is having your cake and eating it - you offend neither end of the theological debate. However, it left me feeling slightly short-changed.
Among a number of plot points which creaked somewhat, I question Colin Friels' brother - ready to betray his brother for a promotion bribe one minute, and then taking up management of a class action against the briber/s the next.
My biggest quibble, though, is with the casting of the two principals. Connolly, a very talented actor, played the whole thing with a degree of high amusement which I found highly improbable given the financial disaster which was staring him and his nearest and dearest in the face. I'm not sure whether this was his fault or the director's. And his broad Scots accent meant that Colin Friels had to adopt a Scots accent (native, apparently), which failed to convince throughout.
And Judy Davies, never one of my favourite actresses, totally failed to convince in a role which demanded someone light and frothy. She plays angry and heavy very well, but does not appear to have the deftness of touch which this role demanded, pratfall into the sea notwithstanding.
Pure enjoyment, gets you thinking, superb acting.
boyesbo8 April 2010
I loved this film. This is meaningful if you share my criteria for enjoyable movies:
Mustn't shock me into nightmares. Must be well acted by engaging characters. Must touch the heart and keep me interested throughout. Must draw me fully into the "consideration" or thematic intention of the story, sparking my own pondering of life.
This film does all this and more. But most of all, it entertained me!
The story has a clever, but really believable premise... a quirky character (like me and my friends), finds himself blind-sided by an unpredictable series of events, and starts to question why and how this could have happened.
Rather than turn into emotional pulp, he rises to the occasion with humor, facing the unknown with growing intuition of how this "place" works... how mysterious and fluid life is... and what is required of a person to be a "man" (male or female).
But there is not an ounce of heaviness in this consideration of life and Reality. It's done with humor and surprises that keep me tickled throughout without dropping the thread of the deeper questioning.
I loved it, and have recommended it to all my friends.
Mustn't shock me into nightmares. Must be well acted by engaging characters. Must touch the heart and keep me interested throughout. Must draw me fully into the "consideration" or thematic intention of the story, sparking my own pondering of life.
This film does all this and more. But most of all, it entertained me!
The story has a clever, but really believable premise... a quirky character (like me and my friends), finds himself blind-sided by an unpredictable series of events, and starts to question why and how this could have happened.
Rather than turn into emotional pulp, he rises to the occasion with humor, facing the unknown with growing intuition of how this "place" works... how mysterious and fluid life is... and what is required of a person to be a "man" (male or female).
But there is not an ounce of heaviness in this consideration of life and Reality. It's done with humor and surprises that keep me tickled throughout without dropping the thread of the deeper questioning.
I loved it, and have recommended it to all my friends.
Boring, tedious, and a waste of time...
thomas-hardcastle-220 April 2008
I thought it was rubbish. The premise is interesting, but when you actually sit down and watch this, it becomes clear that the premise was the only thing that had been worked on.
Poor script. Average acting. There isn't much about this film that can be commented on in a positive manner. They even added the usual love interest trash.
This film is bad, but it's certainly not, "Gangs of New York," bad. This film, although a boring piece of cheap film-making is three times better than Gangs Of New York, which is why I've given it three out of ten. Never, ever watch Gangs Of New York, or you'll probably end up wanting to watch something three times better, like this piece of sheet.
Poor script. Average acting. There isn't much about this film that can be commented on in a positive manner. They even added the usual love interest trash.
This film is bad, but it's certainly not, "Gangs of New York," bad. This film, although a boring piece of cheap film-making is three times better than Gangs Of New York, which is why I've given it three out of ten. Never, ever watch Gangs Of New York, or you'll probably end up wanting to watch something three times better, like this piece of sheet.
Understated Genius
fung06 January 2011
It's too easy to dismiss The Man Who Sued God as 'just' a lighthearted romantic comedy. Any genre can be elevated to the level of genius, if it's done this well.
Starting with a brilliant premise - challenging the stupid 'act of God' terminology used by the insurance industry - this film explores the philosophical ramifications. Is there a God, and is He responsible for random misfortunes? Does organized religion really believe what it preaches? And how does it respond to a logical, even legal, challenge to its dogma? At the same time, the film follows an eccentric but extremely likable character, played by the inimitable Billy Connolly, as he seeks his own form of redemption. And it adds a quirky, yet equally likable news reporter, whose views are drastically different from Connolly's.
It's a formula, to be sure, but it's worked out brilliantly. (One comparison that comes to mind is Adam's Rib, which uses the law and some very witty dialog to explore marital relationships.) And the ending is absolutely perfect, resolving all the questions with just the right mixture of theology and enlightened common sense. Instead of a heavy-handed Hollywood resolution, we get something more delicate and subtle, but also far more satisfying.
The Man Who Sued God manages a difficult feat - being both hilariously funny and deeply thought-provoking. It's a near-perfect film, and a highly enjoyable one as well.
Starting with a brilliant premise - challenging the stupid 'act of God' terminology used by the insurance industry - this film explores the philosophical ramifications. Is there a God, and is He responsible for random misfortunes? Does organized religion really believe what it preaches? And how does it respond to a logical, even legal, challenge to its dogma? At the same time, the film follows an eccentric but extremely likable character, played by the inimitable Billy Connolly, as he seeks his own form of redemption. And it adds a quirky, yet equally likable news reporter, whose views are drastically different from Connolly's.
It's a formula, to be sure, but it's worked out brilliantly. (One comparison that comes to mind is Adam's Rib, which uses the law and some very witty dialog to explore marital relationships.) And the ending is absolutely perfect, resolving all the questions with just the right mixture of theology and enlightened common sense. Instead of a heavy-handed Hollywood resolution, we get something more delicate and subtle, but also far more satisfying.
The Man Who Sued God manages a difficult feat - being both hilariously funny and deeply thought-provoking. It's a near-perfect film, and a highly enjoyable one as well.
a disappointment
roedyg7 April 2013
Billy Connolly is one of funniest comedians on the planet. This movie wasted 90% of his talent. Swearing, falling down, and scripted gags are not what he is for. He is known as a comic atheist. In the movie he plays an addled believer. The scruffy dog Arthur gets the biggest laughs.
I expected the movie to play in a witty way with the notion of "act of god" and the lies churches and insurance companies perpetuate, but the banter was wooden and irrational. I repeatedly tuned out with boredom. The climax of the movie is a Hollywood-style CGI "miracle", corny as could be. The movie does not even have the intellectual weight of "Oh God".
I expected the movie to play in a witty way with the notion of "act of god" and the lies churches and insurance companies perpetuate, but the banter was wooden and irrational. I repeatedly tuned out with boredom. The climax of the movie is a Hollywood-style CGI "miracle", corny as could be. The movie does not even have the intellectual weight of "Oh God".
A nice gentle heartwarming story.
Digital_Diablo27 August 2003
If you only watch one 'alternative' film this year, see this one.
This is a lovely hard warming, but gentle story about a guy who's boat and livelihood is destroyed by lightning. When the insurance company refuse to pay up, blaming it on an 'act of god', he decides to try to gain compensation from someone.
This is a delightful film that's a relaxing, humorous and gentle tale of one little mans fight against the global conglomerates who are using God as a way of getting out of their contracts.
It's a great film, and one which I would recommend you go see before it disappears. And I'm going to buy it on DVD!
This is a lovely hard warming, but gentle story about a guy who's boat and livelihood is destroyed by lightning. When the insurance company refuse to pay up, blaming it on an 'act of god', he decides to try to gain compensation from someone.
This is a delightful film that's a relaxing, humorous and gentle tale of one little mans fight against the global conglomerates who are using God as a way of getting out of their contracts.
It's a great film, and one which I would recommend you go see before it disappears. And I'm going to buy it on DVD!
Totally spoiled by its chewy soft center!
Mini_Cooper_Girl15 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this film with high expectations, Billy is usually so funny with his observational humour! The title had me wondering and the storyline is very clever and well thought out.
Half way through I noticed (trying not to be biased because of its low-budget status) that the script did the storyline no justice. The only funny parts I expected came from the constant bad mouthing of Connelly and the odd line from the Priests etc. The worst was yet to come.
(SPOILERS)
Just when the film was getting juicy (when the church could only win by proving God DOESN'T exist) Connelly falls for (in matters of the heart and into bed with) the annoying reporter that oh-so-sweetly accepts the fact that he cost her her job!
Basically the end turns out so that he drops his case because God's "fury" turned him to the new love of his life and they live happily ever after, yada yada yada, then he sponges off the media and makes a few Australian bucks!
Good start to the story and very controversial in its own right, bad ending and even worse acting on the reporters part, i can't even remember her name!
Half way through I noticed (trying not to be biased because of its low-budget status) that the script did the storyline no justice. The only funny parts I expected came from the constant bad mouthing of Connelly and the odd line from the Priests etc. The worst was yet to come.
(SPOILERS)
Just when the film was getting juicy (when the church could only win by proving God DOESN'T exist) Connelly falls for (in matters of the heart and into bed with) the annoying reporter that oh-so-sweetly accepts the fact that he cost her her job!
Basically the end turns out so that he drops his case because God's "fury" turned him to the new love of his life and they live happily ever after, yada yada yada, then he sponges off the media and makes a few Australian bucks!
Good start to the story and very controversial in its own right, bad ending and even worse acting on the reporters part, i can't even remember her name!
Interesting idea badly executed!
aazell121 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A nice idea and some great concepts in the script. It seems to me that whomever wrote the script was aiming to make an Aussie movie that would appeal to the US audience. This is a real shame as it sucks the punch out of the story and undermines some good performances and some good comedy.
Here's a few problems with the direction and script that bothered me while watching this: Characterisation: With the exception of the main characters all other characters are poorly drawn. The TV and Radio hosts are badly acted along with the TV interviewers who stand on the steps of the court house. The problem is that these are the elements that we as viewers are the most familiar with leaving me with the impression that they just couldn't be bothered to pay enough attention to the detail.
Music: Oddly, the music editing in this film is amazingly distracting. The music is often too loud over the actors voices which makes it hard to concentrate on the performances. Also it seems that the editors couldn't resist in laying music over almost every scene. Basically there's way too much music and it's used heavy handedly throughout.
The Love Story: Where the **** did that come from? There was a nice bit of friendship chemistry between the two leads but I don't think there's any element of the film that hinted at them falling in love until they start snogging. I think the film would have been stronger if they'd remained friends with a strong respect for each other.
Cop out ending: It seems that the writers wrote themselves into a bit of a corner and by the beginning of the third act you start to wonder how their going to get themselves out of it. For a film that raises a pretty serious issue they seem to abandon their principles at the last moment which is a shame because it's the main hook of the movie in my opinion. Plus and ill conceived "sign from god" episode which is completely pointless.
Summary A reasonable vehicle for Billy Connelly who is as watchable as ever but unfortunately it lacks the courage of its convictions.
Here's a few problems with the direction and script that bothered me while watching this: Characterisation: With the exception of the main characters all other characters are poorly drawn. The TV and Radio hosts are badly acted along with the TV interviewers who stand on the steps of the court house. The problem is that these are the elements that we as viewers are the most familiar with leaving me with the impression that they just couldn't be bothered to pay enough attention to the detail.
Music: Oddly, the music editing in this film is amazingly distracting. The music is often too loud over the actors voices which makes it hard to concentrate on the performances. Also it seems that the editors couldn't resist in laying music over almost every scene. Basically there's way too much music and it's used heavy handedly throughout.
The Love Story: Where the **** did that come from? There was a nice bit of friendship chemistry between the two leads but I don't think there's any element of the film that hinted at them falling in love until they start snogging. I think the film would have been stronger if they'd remained friends with a strong respect for each other.
Cop out ending: It seems that the writers wrote themselves into a bit of a corner and by the beginning of the third act you start to wonder how their going to get themselves out of it. For a film that raises a pretty serious issue they seem to abandon their principles at the last moment which is a shame because it's the main hook of the movie in my opinion. Plus and ill conceived "sign from god" episode which is completely pointless.
Summary A reasonable vehicle for Billy Connelly who is as watchable as ever but unfortunately it lacks the courage of its convictions.
Who's liable?
Josef Tura-28 November 2001
I am an American exchange student who just happened to catch
this film while I am studying in Sydney. It was quite a rewarding
experience.
First off, Billy Connolly is the most underrated comic in films
today. He naturally has the ability to be funny without trying and he can act with emotion with out all the effort that other actors
like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey expend. In other words, he's a natural. He just needs a clever plot and a well crafted movie to
shine. This is that. The ending is too strongly made and the point
that has been subtly implied throughout the film is rammed home
with reckless abandon, but barring that it is an excellent film.
Well worth a watch.
I expect few insurance companies will agree with my assessment. They aren't portrayed as the heroes of the
piece. Oh well.
this film while I am studying in Sydney. It was quite a rewarding
experience.
First off, Billy Connolly is the most underrated comic in films
today. He naturally has the ability to be funny without trying and he can act with emotion with out all the effort that other actors
like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey expend. In other words, he's a natural. He just needs a clever plot and a well crafted movie to
shine. This is that. The ending is too strongly made and the point
that has been subtly implied throughout the film is rammed home
with reckless abandon, but barring that it is an excellent film.
Well worth a watch.
I expect few insurance companies will agree with my assessment. They aren't portrayed as the heroes of the
piece. Oh well.
Irreverent, but relevant.
raymond-1519 November 2001
This is a mischievous comedy that pulls no punches in its criticism of the media,insurance companies and the religious fraternity. Some might construe it as blasphemous. The phrase "Act of God" universally used in insurance policies gets a severe thrashing in the film and in the process leaves one doubled up in uncontrollable laughter. It's a real winner...a film guaranteed to send you home with a smile on your face. Steve (Billy Connolly)is seeking replacement of his fishing boat which has been destroyed in an unexpected lightning storm, but his insurance company refuses to pay a cent on the grounds that the catastrophe was an "Act of God". Not satisfied with this decision Steve recruits family, friends and action groups to back him up in a court of law. The storms at the beginning and end of the film are something to behold. The cinemaphotography throughout is praiseworthy and the shots of the Australian coastline warrants special mention. The plot may not be quite believable, but it is original and makes for a good story. The church interiors are serene and inspiring, and there are other quiet and tender moments as well, but on the whole the action rattles along at a rollicking good pace. Billy Connolly obviously relishes the part of the boisterous fisherman as he strives onward in a kind of David and Goliath battle. In short he is well cast. When the going gets really tough, Steve consults his dog Arthur who stands by his master through thick and thin. There is an amazing climax in the final court scene which ensures that everyone leaves the theatre with a good feeling deep down inside.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
