Hamish Joy
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.
boyesbo
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.
Neil Welch
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.
mjw2305
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.
AD
