Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

A nice idea and some great concepts in the script. It seems to me that whomever wrote the script was aiming to make an Aussie movie that would appeal to the US audience. This is a real shame as it sucks the punch out of the story and undermines some good performances and some good comedy.Here's a few problems with the direction and script that bothered me while watching this: Characterisation: With the exception of the main characters all other characters are poorly drawn. The TV and Radio hosts are badly acted along with the TV interviewers who stand on the steps of the court house. The problem is that these are the elements that we as viewers are the most familiar with leaving me with the impression that they just couldn't be bothered to pay enough attention to the detail.Music: Oddly, the music editing in this film is amazingly distracting. The music is often too loud over the actors voices which makes it hard to concentrate on the performances. Also it seems that the editors couldn't resist in laying music over almost every scene. Basically there's way too much music and it's used heavy handedly throughout.The Love Story: Where the **** did that come from? There was a nice bit of friendship chemistry between the two leads but I don't think there's any element of the film that hinted at them falling in love until they start snogging. I think the film would have been stronger if they'd remained friends with a strong respect for each other.Cop out ending: It seems that the writers wrote themselves into a bit of a corner and by the beginning of the third act you start to wonder how their going to get themselves out of it. For a film that raises a pretty serious issue they seem to abandon their principles at the last moment which is a shame because it's the main hook of the movie in my opinion. Plus and ill conceived "sign from god" episode which is completely pointless.Summary A reasonable vehicle for Billy Connelly who is as watchable as ever but unfortunately it lacks the courage of its convictions.

First things first: Billy Connolly is usually a sexed-up Scot who swears too much and makes endless sex and genital jokes. This film shows that he can do more than just X-rated "humour", but he has a heart, and when he made this film, he shows his nice side. Steve Myers (Connolly)is a lawyer turned fisherman who, after his boat is blown up by lightning, decides to sue God after the insurance company doesn't pay up. He finds a very good loophole in the legal system that states that a company cannot deny the existence of an employer or employee, therefore, the church cannot deny the existence of God. Connolly and Judy Davis' performances are above par. A great must-see film.

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.