The Man Who Sued God (2001)

Fresh and Exciting

Awesome Movie

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

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.

One cannot deny that this is a piece that the "Big Yang" presumably made for the money. In many aspects, this is certainly very little in this film that deviates from the standard formula.It all revolves around good old Billy... so much so that toward the end when they are trying to fill the film out to 90 minutes, he spends a lot of time just loitering unwholesomely in Churches...I suppose that in some ways the idea behind this is wholly novel, really it never escapes the fact it wants to be a schmaltzy romance and a legal drama. Certainly the emphasis seems to be on Conolly all the way, perhaps to the exclusion of all else. As mentioned before, it can never be more than a star-vehicle for him.It does actually have a good point to make but really, any kind of point it tries to make it ignored for the bland happy ending and classic "bad guys lose" scenario.

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.