Frank vs. God

First, this is not appropriate for children. Honestly, I'm not sure it is appropriate for anyone. It just misses the mark on all points. It is not particularly funny (okay, maybe a couple of times), not original (some of the courtroom scene was practically lifted from the movie, "Oh, God!"), not focused on one particular viewpoint (e.g. Christianity, Islam, or Judaism), and not informed (it did not quote the Bible in its full context). I walked away from the whole experience wishing I had my money back. I didn't pay for the movie, but I still felt ripped off.

A story about finite man trying to understand the role of Our Infinite God in the midst of personal tragedy is no laughing matter. It is taken with more of light-hearted approach then to seriously consider the matter. It trivializes one of the most difficult questions of our existence: Why do bad things happen to good people?

I think anyone who really wants to study that question should read the Book of Job from the Old Testament. You will learn that Job, a righteous man both in the eyes of God and his community, is struck with multiple disasters that wipes him out of his home and his children's lives. Chapter after chapter Job asks, "Why?" He never gets an answer from God or from anybody. But, God does asks Job some big questions for which Job must remain silent. What happened? Job learned perspective and place. When he considered what God asked him, it was quite apparent he did not possess the mind of God or His understanding..

In the final analysis, this is what the movie should have done. It needed to remind us that whatever is happening that we don't understand, there is an Infinite Understanding Mind and an Infinite Heart of Compassion behind it. It is best seen on a cross, not this film.

One of the best films I've seen in a long time. Frank v God is both an Indy film and a Popular one rolled into one. It's funny, heartfelt but not over the top, and always with a dose of poetic irony that gives the plot a nice thick depth. Frank as a character is played wonderfully, and the supporting cast is also strong. The inter-religious context is one of the most hilariously played parts, yet the film is so philosophical, I almost blush that people could see the film and not leave changed. The cinematography is nicely done, with exciting action shots and scenes, and provide entertainment for many of the various demographics (men who like action, women who like drama and romance, film buffs who enjoy interesting plot twists and stunning dialog, etc.). I hope to get a copy of the film after it is released.

Well, that line never ends up in the movie since you can't serve court process on the Great Invisible, but Frank's (LOST's Henry Ian Cusick) insurance company won't pay out on his home's destruction by tornado since it's an act of God. So, Henry sues God for restitution and summons various religious leaders to court on His behalf. At times humorous, this film has a good balance of both religious reverence and irreverence. There's enough legal shenanigans to keep the court case interesting, too. Since a loyal dog is involved, you may want to keep some tissues nearby, especially during the final scene.

I came across this movie unexpectedly one day. It caught my interest because of the title. I decided to give it a few minutes of my time and before you knew it, I watched the entire thing. It was funny but thought provoking. I really liked the concept and it kept my interest entirely. What a pleasant surprise. Highly recommended, especially to believers.

Remakes should come with a prominent warning. So I hope you're reading this BEFORE watching Frank vs God.

The glowing reviews for Frank vs God are clearly from viewers who are unaware that it's a remake of the miraculous 2001 Australian film "The Man Who Sued God." The main thing in favor of this new version is that it follows the original script more or less faithfully. (Up until the ending, of which more in a moment.) Beyond that, there's no comparison.

It might be argued that some stories are worthy of multiple treatments, and that various filmmakers can each bring something new that's worthwhile. True: sometimes the third version of a particular story turns out to be the best. That's not the case here. Like far too many remakes, Frank vs God cannot rival the freshness and style of the work it's copying. This is especially obvious in the substitution, in the leading role, of the earnest Henry Ian Cusick for the brilliantly acerbic Scottish comedian Billy Connolly.

Losing Connolly is just the start. Frank vs God shifts the overall emphasis, becoming darker and adding a very American denouement (which I won't give away). The US ending is more shocking - I guess the filmmakers felt the existential Australian ending was too subtle for the US audience. That's an ironic and rather insulting lack of faith on their part. And a poor substitute for the wit and effervescence of The Man Who Sued God.

To be fair, the revised approach of Frank vs God isn't terribly bad. Ultimately, however, The Man Who Sued God is the superior film, not to mention the one and only original. It's only fair that The Man Who Sued God should be seen first, without any preconceptions.

(And while I'm at it, beware also of the Nicolas Cage movie The Family Man - a lame Americanized remake of another amazing Australian film - Me Myself I.)