Watch The Man Who Sued God For Free

Very well executed

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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 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.

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.

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?