Remakes should come with a prominent warning. So I hope you're reading this BEFORE watching Frank vs God.
The glowing reviews for Frank vs God are clearly from viewers who are unaware that it's a remake of the miraculous 2001 Australian film "The Man Who Sued God." The main thing in favor of this new version is that it follows the original script more or less faithfully. (Up until the ending, of which more in a moment.) Beyond that, there's no comparison.
It might be argued that some stories are worthy of multiple treatments, and that various filmmakers can each bring something new that's worthwhile. True: sometimes the third version of a particular story turns out to be the best. That's not the case here. Like far too many remakes, Frank vs God cannot rival the freshness and style of the work it's copying. This is especially obvious in the substitution, in the leading role, of the earnest Henry Ian Cusick for the brilliantly acerbic Scottish comedian Billy Connolly.
Losing Connolly is just the start. Frank vs God shifts the overall emphasis, becoming darker and adding a very American denouement (which I won't give away). The US ending is more shocking - I guess the filmmakers felt the existential Australian ending was too subtle for the US audience. That's an ironic and rather insulting lack of faith on their part. And a poor substitute for the wit and effervescence of The Man Who Sued God.
To be fair, the revised approach of Frank vs God isn't terribly bad. Ultimately, however, The Man Who Sued God is the superior film, not to mention the one and only original. It's only fair that The Man Who Sued God should be seen first, without any preconceptions.
(And while I'm at it, beware also of the Nicolas Cage movie The Family Man - a lame Americanized remake of another amazing Australian film - Me Myself I.)
The glowing reviews for Frank vs God are clearly from viewers who are unaware that it's a remake of the miraculous 2001 Australian film "The Man Who Sued God." The main thing in favor of this new version is that it follows the original script more or less faithfully. (Up until the ending, of which more in a moment.) Beyond that, there's no comparison.
It might be argued that some stories are worthy of multiple treatments, and that various filmmakers can each bring something new that's worthwhile. True: sometimes the third version of a particular story turns out to be the best. That's not the case here. Like far too many remakes, Frank vs God cannot rival the freshness and style of the work it's copying. This is especially obvious in the substitution, in the leading role, of the earnest Henry Ian Cusick for the brilliantly acerbic Scottish comedian Billy Connolly.
Losing Connolly is just the start. Frank vs God shifts the overall emphasis, becoming darker and adding a very American denouement (which I won't give away). The US ending is more shocking - I guess the filmmakers felt the existential Australian ending was too subtle for the US audience. That's an ironic and rather insulting lack of faith on their part. And a poor substitute for the wit and effervescence of The Man Who Sued God.
To be fair, the revised approach of Frank vs God isn't terribly bad. Ultimately, however, The Man Who Sued God is the superior film, not to mention the one and only original. It's only fair that The Man Who Sued God should be seen first, without any preconceptions.
(And while I'm at it, beware also of the Nicolas Cage movie The Family Man - a lame Americanized remake of another amazing Australian film - Me Myself I.)