Henry Ian Cusick is a genius actor but my god the leading actress was horrible, I can't even say her name. She was untalented and extremly unattached for a leading actress.
20 Reviews
Meh
jacksav-3014619 November 2018
Warning: REMAKE. See the original first!
fung010 September 2023
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.)
Catchy trailer ... And movie delivers!
Lxvpsu4420 July 2014
Movie Trailers are suppose to grab your attention & reel the potential audience in! Frank vs God does just that! There's a story. You want to hear & experience the story. It's also nice to see a movie with a Florida backdrop. The film has a very diverse engaging cast. Henry Ian Cusick delivers as Frank--Comfortable performance. The writers: thoughtful, professional and clever. It's always great to get LOST in a movie and catch yourself with a fixed smile at times along with getting the " thinking wheels turning. " Frank vs God is a very interesting film! 2 thumbs up and great movie/story for a wide range of people. I look forward to seeing it in the future on DVD.
Not bad till the end.
ted-41110 September 2020
Frank sues God for a tornado destroying his house and killing his dog. It was a passable courtroom fable of discovery (or non-discovery) of God after the model of "Cousin Vinny". At the very end they expect you to believe an NDE hallucination would convince Frank of an afterlife. It was a fairly decent story until they spliced on a sappy maudlin ending. It crushed any argument they made for the existence of god(s). Turn it off after he closes his argument and you won't get sick.
Excellent film, inspiring and entertaining
musicalyogi19 July 2014
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.
For a better take on this subject, read the Book of Job
denandcyn10 December 2020
First, this is not appropriate for children. Honestly, I'm not sure it is appropriate for anyone. It just misses the mark on all points. It is not particularly funny (okay, maybe a couple of times), not original (some of the courtroom scene was practically lifted from the movie, "Oh, God!"), not focused on one particular viewpoint (e.g. Christianity, Islam, or Judaism), and not informed (it did not quote the Bible in its full context). I walked away from the whole experience wishing I had my money back. I didn't pay for the movie, but I still felt ripped off.
A story about finite man trying to understand the role of Our Infinite God in the midst of personal tragedy is no laughing matter. It is taken with more of light-hearted approach then to seriously consider the matter. It trivializes one of the most difficult questions of our existence: Why do bad things happen to good people?
I think anyone who really wants to study that question should read the Book of Job from the Old Testament. You will learn that Job, a righteous man both in the eyes of God and his community, is struck with multiple disasters that wipes him out of his home and his children's lives. Chapter after chapter Job asks, "Why?" He never gets an answer from God or from anybody. But, God does asks Job some big questions for which Job must remain silent. What happened? Job learned perspective and place. When he considered what God asked him, it was quite apparent he did not possess the mind of God or His understanding..
In the final analysis, this is what the movie should have done. It needed to remind us that whatever is happening that we don't understand, there is an Infinite Understanding Mind and an Infinite Heart of Compassion behind it. It is best seen on a cross, not this film.
A story about finite man trying to understand the role of Our Infinite God in the midst of personal tragedy is no laughing matter. It is taken with more of light-hearted approach then to seriously consider the matter. It trivializes one of the most difficult questions of our existence: Why do bad things happen to good people?
I think anyone who really wants to study that question should read the Book of Job from the Old Testament. You will learn that Job, a righteous man both in the eyes of God and his community, is struck with multiple disasters that wipes him out of his home and his children's lives. Chapter after chapter Job asks, "Why?" He never gets an answer from God or from anybody. But, God does asks Job some big questions for which Job must remain silent. What happened? Job learned perspective and place. When he considered what God asked him, it was quite apparent he did not possess the mind of God or His understanding..
In the final analysis, this is what the movie should have done. It needed to remind us that whatever is happening that we don't understand, there is an Infinite Understanding Mind and an Infinite Heart of Compassion behind it. It is best seen on a cross, not this film.
Can i sue god for this movie?
jpapanone16 February 2020
Stewart schill should be ashamed of himself.
A college student studying filmmaking should be ahsamed of this.
Do people say...i want to be a maker of crappy movies when i grow up?
I love me some Henry Cusack....and this has been on my to watch for list for years. Finally got around to it. Thank nothing youtune allows 2X speed setting.
This movie shouldn't have made it past the first trimester
I love me some Henry Cusack....and this has been on my to watch for list for years. Finally got around to it. Thank nothing youtune allows 2X speed setting.
This movie shouldn't have made it past the first trimester
Blatant copy of the 2001 movie "The man who sued god"
ncslngshot17 September 2023
This movie was an almost carbon copy of the 2001 Australian movie "The man who sued god", that starred Billy Connoly, Colin Freils and Judy Davis.
The original had the main character being a retired lawyer that became a fisherman. His boat was anchored in the harbor and was struck by lightening and burned/sunk as a result on a dark mid morning.. this led to the familiar storyline of the man having his claim rejected under the Act of God clause.
With the description of this 2014 movie, it is quoted that it was directed from the directors own script, I'm thinking that it really means "his own pirated script".
A blatant rip-off of the original Australian masterpiece...
The original had the main character being a retired lawyer that became a fisherman. His boat was anchored in the harbor and was struck by lightening and burned/sunk as a result on a dark mid morning.. this led to the familiar storyline of the man having his claim rejected under the Act of God clause.
With the description of this 2014 movie, it is quoted that it was directed from the directors own script, I'm thinking that it really means "his own pirated script".
A blatant rip-off of the original Australian masterpiece...
Absolutely Wonderful!
aer71367-313-15506913 June 2017
A great film about a man that questions God after his home is destroyed in a tornado. This magical film will take you along for ride as one man tries to find out who God is. Filled with laughs and some real insight from many religious viewpoints. Frank vs. God is definitely a film everyone should see. Maybe it won't change your mind about God, but it will change your heart about God.
Surprisingly good movie
dabarreto11 February 2020
I came across this movie unexpectedly one day. It caught my interest because of the title. I decided to give it a few minutes of my time and before you knew it, I watched the entire thing.
It was funny but thought provoking. I really liked the concept and it kept my interest entirely. What a pleasant surprise. Highly recommended, especially to believers.
Enlightening yet Self-Undermining Ending
addictorator19 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Life Changing film!!
davidianchristine885 June 2017
There are no words to describe the love I have for this little film! I have seen it multiple times at different festivals and have recommended the film to friends and family where ever I go. The writing was and is very clever, poignant and moving to someone like me who has had multiple struggles and disputes with questioning their faith and the existence of a higher power.The acting by both Ever Caradine and Henry Ian Cusick were nothing short of phenomenal and utterly moving in every sense of the word. I could really feel and understand what they were going through. They were very genuine in their performances; they spoke to my heart and hit right at home! The actors were both in-sync and the courtroom scenes just blew me away.They made me laugh, they made me smile and at times made me cry. The film made me understand what was important in life and that regardless and I will always treasure it for that. TERRIFIC FILM!!!
Well done on all counts
Snootz20 January 2018
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.
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.
God, you've been served
TheTruthofItIs20 February 2021
Well, that line never ends up in the movie since you can't serve court process on the Great Invisible, but Frank's (LOST's Henry Ian Cusick) insurance company won't pay out on his home's destruction by tornado since it's an act of God. So, Henry sues God for restitution and summons various religious leaders to court on His behalf. At times humorous, this film has a good balance of both religious reverence and irreverence. There's enough legal shenanigans to keep the court case interesting, too. Since a loyal dog is involved, you may want to keep some tissues nearby, especially during the final scene.
Could watch this film over and over again...and will!
sistahic075 June 2017
Had the good fortune to see this film 3 times at various film festivals and each time it grows dearer to me. I'm so excited it's finally going to get an official release on iTunes and on Demand. It's simply a beautiful film about love, loss, doubt and faith. Add in just the right amount of humor too and you have a film that will have you laughing and crying and certainly leave you with the feeling you've just had a wonderful viewing experience! Can't say enough about the wonderful acting of Henry Ian Cusick. He's a master at his craft and once more delights the viewer in every scene. Ever Carradine too is lovely and a joy to watch as well. From the writing to the direction (thank you Stewart Schill!) and to the talented cast, Frank VS God will surprise and entertain you and leave you feeling so good you watched it. Do yourself a favor and don't miss Frank VS God!
A Touching and Beautiful Film
Ashlynn23175 June 2017
I first saw Frank vs God at the Ft. Lauderdale International Film Festival in November of 2014. I was very excited to see this film and I will say that after seeing it...I am still excited about it! I have been telling all of my family and friends that this is a film that is definitely worth seeing. David Frank (Henry Ian Cusick) is a man who lost everything that mattered to him. He lost his wife, his home, his dog...things were not going well for him. One day he takes matters into his own hands and he decides to sue god for damages to house that were caused by a tornado. This one event sets up the rest of the film. I can promise you, there will be laughter and tears throughout the whole thing. It is a beautiful film with a very important message. I remember sitting in the theater crying and questioning my own beliefs and questioning why certain things have happened in my life. Regardless of your own religion, background, beliefs etc. you will be able to relate to this film and I promise that you will enjoy it. I will also say, as a Henry Ian Cusick supporter, this is Ian's best work to date. He is good in every role of his but this one is different. He gives an outstanding performance as David Frank and this performance makes me proud to support a man with such incredible talent. So, if you are looking for a funny and heart warming film to watch give Frank vs. God a chance. You won't be disappointed!
Wouldn't go as far as to say it's the greatest film ever...
yada212124 December 2019
HOWEVER, it does inspire one to consider his or her own age-old question, 'why are we here?' It reminded me of my moment when I sought answers from a study of many of the world's religious philosophies when I was in my teens. Why are we subjected to so much pain and suffering, trial and tribulation, despair and doubt in this life? Perhaps it is about a test of our faith, integrity, and compassion for life? Given what is happening in the world today, it does make one think about our own self-reliance and our individual faith. And, how it may be lacking when we submit to the urgings of those around us who think only about themselves and today's existence, rather than in others or efforts to make life and existence better than in the past. If we forget to learn from and better ourselves from life's many mistakes or misfortunes, are we ready for whatever comes next? Although we should all strive to be the best we can be as individual human beings, we can get lost if we unwittingly or lazily fall for faith in others who are either not worthy of our trust, or deserving of our effort. Especially if we forget to stay grounded by our faith in the benevolence of that which is greater than ourselves and that which we cannot understand. For isn't it those who remain 'full of themselves' and in deference to life's greatest tests who lack the proper consideration of the meaning of our existence? That we should be reminded to always be the best we can be for our own sake, blessing and deprecation, rather than blindly follow those who have not even bothered to ask that other fateful question...what is our purpose for being? The only thing, in my opinion, that is lacking in this wonderful movie is a greater revelation of "the answer". But, perhaps the answer is beat left to the imagination and creativity of the viewer. Any film that inspires the viewer to actually think about what they are seeing is worthy of consideration as an undertaking well done.
A truly great film with a try-too-hard ending
yeolit28 September 2018
This is the first film that really blows my mind away, not only because it covers so many of the things I have had for a long time. I have contact with religions previously and like Frank, I believe there's a God, yet do not believe why He would do so many of the things attribute to His name.
The movie is very realistic most of the time, except the end which tries too hard to give a good ending, not to mention how rushed it was. The progressive revealing of some back stories is great but it doesn't cover Frank's in full.
This film is so enjoyable I would give it a full score despite its flaws, simply because some of the excellent ideas and concepts that were presented , and presented so well.
The movie is very realistic most of the time, except the end which tries too hard to give a good ending, not to mention how rushed it was. The progressive revealing of some back stories is great but it doesn't cover Frank's in full.
This film is so enjoyable I would give it a full score despite its flaws, simply because some of the excellent ideas and concepts that were presented , and presented so well.
Hidden gem
petercooperinoz8 September 2021
I loved this move. I stumbled on it & it piqued my curiosity, and I am so glad that it did. I had only seen Henty Cusick in the series the mentalist where he played a sociopath and all found bad guy. In this one he excels as an everyman who just wants answers to hard questions. The likening of god to a corporation who can be sued is inspired. The judges attempt to exclude god from the suit was an obvious one to overcome, but hey, it kept the story rolling. A big part of the ending was obvious, but not how he would get there. I am sure I will watch this many times.
Goosebumps
mickeyrayart10 January 2020
Frank Vs. God is wonderful in every way!!! How is it that such a great film has been so under the radar?!! Honestly, I have NEVER in my life experienced so many chills and goosebumps from a film. Buy the DVD! You will want to play it for family and friends. It is sure to get everybody laughing, crying, and conversing their heads off afterward!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
