bohicaranch 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.

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.

kipros13-1 I think that this movie, beyond that is a Drama-Comdedy film , has a great philosophical point. It takes the watcher into an easygoing man whose life is actually stroked by a thunder. When he can't find his right, he starts to find what really causes his unhappiness ( i think that this is the real reason why he sued God). He becomes faced with one great philosophical question: What is God?. At the end he finds, and he helps anyone watching this film to find out what is God: God is happiness, God is love and nothing beyond. Doing this, he gives some trouble to the insurance companies which actually use God for their purposes to gain more money.

Kayls 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!