Granger
I am somewhat critical of movies. So when I give this potentially-biased movie a 10-star rating, it's because I believe it fully deserves it. But the reason I rate it so highly is more important than the rating itself: it's because I couldn't find a single flaw in the entire film.The main point is this: this movie has little to do with whether or not there is a God, whether or not He is responsible for all things, or mankind's position in trying to judge God if indeed he does exist. So I don't rate this on any of those issues. In fact, this film succeeds because it doesn't really try to answer any of those questions. I rate it on the merits of the movie... not philosophical or faith vs atheist teachings. Just as "He who represents himself in court has a fool for an attorney"... those who attempt to view this movie from their personal belief system will surely miss the point of the film entirely.The question isn't "Does God exist?" The question is: Is this a good movie? Was it well directed, well-acted, have a good story-line, stick to the plot with consistency, offer an imaginative resolution and make a point? My answer to all of those questions is Yes.What do I believe? Yes there is a God, no God is not responsible for the consistently selfish decisions made by humankind and the consequences thereof, and humans (who are limited to a measly 5 senses) trying to judge God is like a 2-year old throwing a tantrum because his parents won't let him eat all the cake and candy he wants. Humankind exhibits a degree of arrogance and self-importance beyond all sense. That is my personal belief system... and has nothing to do with this movie. And that's the point: this film isn't about personal belief systems. It's about how we view our belief systems. In short: how arrogant are we? How do we handle life's adversities? Do we stand up to them or blame someone else? Do we attempt to judge others despite our own limitations?Whether or not God exists and subsets thereof is only the lure to get people to watch the film. This film is actually about the personal journey of one man and how it affects the people around him. All else is merely a plot device to propel that theme. Setting aside the "faith vs atheism" some may try to impose upon this film, as a film this performs very well. The writing, directing and acting are all top-notch. The court case is exceptionally well-written. The debates are well-presented, yet remain secondary to the main plot and theme. It doesn't "jump the shark". It holds true to its purpose, all the way through. So that's what I've rated: the movie itself and whether or not it succeeds. In all aspects my answer is "yes, it does". Thus the well-deserved high rating.
addictorator
Firstly, I do acknowledge and disclose I am biased in this argument, being an atheist born into a very religious family, but aren't all reviews biased and colored by the past experiences of the reviewer? There is no such thing as an impartial review, but I will try my best to.In short, this was a perfect 10, an enlightening film that could have easily gotten a full 10 from me if not for the ending that seems to undermine itself and ruin the whole message of the film. By this, I do not mean the result of the legal suit.I enjoyed the whole film, and it was near cathartic to hear the same frustrating answers given time and time again by every religion all over, be refuted. Henry Ian Cusick's acting was simply superb, and especially his (Frank's) speech where he claimed bad things happened to good people, vice versa, and that terrible things happened to innocent people, it was a sentiment I wholly agree with.Moreover, the part where the brother accuses Frank's lawsuit as having worsened his niece's cancer, it shows the unshakable, and in my opinion, unhealthy belief borne from people who cling to the idea of an omnipotent benevolent deity who they look to when they feel helpless, and yet hypocritically blame every other person for acts of misfortune, or blessings in disguise. She had cancer since the beginning, but no, that wasn't God. The prayers hadn't worked, again, God is faultless. But the condition worsens and coincidentally her uncle was doing something considered heretical, the fault now lies with him for cancer, of all things. Would a merciful god kill an innocent child who is simply a relative of the wrongdoer, as punishment for the wrongdoer's sins? If indeed this is the work of an almighty entity and by design, is this not cruel, no matter how as priests claim, us mortals cannot understand the methodology of god? Is such a god, even if they exist, worthy of worship?However, I do feel that the ending of this movie was somewhat self-undermining. No, I do not think he should have won against God, nor that it is even possible. It was simply a desperate move by somebody who did not care either way, who had, at the time of filing the suit, nothing to lose.My issue with the ending is that right after him acknowledging that it may have been a blessing in disguise (which can be grudgingly acknowledged as he lost a pet and material possessions but this set off a chain of events that led him to meet the partner he loves and recover from his grief), his following point where he says he accepts that senseless grief still exists in this world, is completely destroyed. The girl cured of cancer, the dog Brutus somehow alive, him getting stabbed and not dying, all existing and past problems resolved by simply letting go of his fight against god. I certainly like this outcome better than one mired in tragedy as a person (who would want an innocent girl with cancer to die?), but as the ending of a movie, in my opinion, the complete lack of any tragedy or loss, (even the dog that apparently died magically revived), completely undermines his point of there being senseless tragedy in the world, if looking at the film as a representative microcosm. A story of reflection that should have brought mixed emotions, ended on such a happy note that is odd given the nature of the film. It's like somebody pouring pepper on otherwise perfect fluffy pancakes.Also, does the niece being cured of cancer after the uncle stops fighting with God kind of low-key hint at God not killing her out of "divine retribution"? Or at least that would be how it would look to Frank's brother. But I suppose to the deeply religious, anything good that happens is surely god's gift, so it doesn't really matter.
Yogi Prateado
One of the best films I've seen in a long time. Frank v God is both an Indy film and a Popular one rolled into one. It's funny, heartfelt but not over the top, and always with a dose of poetic irony that gives the plot a nice thick depth. Frank as a character is played wonderfully, and the supporting cast is also strong. The inter-religious context is one of the most hilariously played parts, yet the film is so philosophical, I almost blush that people could see the film and not leave changed. The cinematography is nicely done, with exciting action shots and scenes, and provide entertainment for many of the various demographics (men who like action, women who like drama and romance, film buffs who enjoy interesting plot twists and stunning dialog, etc.). I hope to get a copy of the film after it is released.
