Why was this movie made? It had been FIVE (5!) years since 'Bruce Almighty', which was already a nonsensical, typical hollyweird 'romance trumps everything'-style Jim Carrey vehicle, in the era, where Jennifer Aniston installed herself into all kinds of weird movies that became big hits, but where she could've been replaced by pretty much any competent actress. Steve Carell was already doing third season of The Office by the time this movie was made, Gordon Freeman had aged visibly, the idea (such as it was), wasn't fresh anymore, and this oboe-filled hell of a visual torture just boggles the mind; WHY was this made? Was it because Steve was still a an unknown small potato in the previous movie, but with The Office, had become a 'superstar' of sorts, and wanted to prove he can do other roles than just Michael Scott, and that he would've been just as good in this particular roles as Jim Carrey was? Was this movie and Steve's approval and appearance in it done by the devil seducing him with empty promises and stroking his ego, until he got excited enough to forget that he should've checked the script first? Let's face it, Steve is no Carrey. No one could replace Steve in 'The Office', he is the PERFECT Michael Scott that I love so much as a character; Michael is innocent (his best quality in my opinion), honest, straightforward and well-meaning (his second-best quality). Sure, he makes mistakes, he's ignorant, he's downright 'rude' (which is so refreshing to see, especially these days), he makes really bad decisions, he has quite a childish personality sometimes, his ego is bruised easily and he gives temper tantrums and hates Toby illogically. He has so many redeeming qualities, though, that the viewer forgives him. Michael has a genuinely good heart, so even when he says 'incredibly racistic things', no one minds, because everyone realizes he's not doing it to be a djck, it's more that he doesn't know better (though a man in his position should, of course, but hey, it's a comedy). Now, the character, whose name I only remember because of another movie, is NOTHING like Michael Scott. He's not as wacky, he's not as interesting, he doesn't have the innocense, he doesn't say 'shocking' things, and the movie is CONSTANTLY halted to a stop by the 'oboe music family scenes' that serve no purpose and do nothing for anyone.. (Just as a sidenote - God (pun intended), how I HATE oboe! That's probably just me, but that grating, unchanging, straight, soul-drilling sound is like a neverending punch that hurts constantly, AUUGGH! Why couldn't the Divine Creator use a bit more interesting instrument or less clichéic story in His movie?! Sorry, I know I am confusing things, but this movie makes you crazy that way) I saw this movie in a bargain bin - first I saw Steve Carell, then Morgan Freeman, then the title, and was very confused - is this some Bruce Almighty documentary or what? Surely no one was stupid enough to make a spin-off movie of an insignifigant (though funny) character from Bruce Almighty, even IF the star is Steve Carell? I wondered why I had never heard of this 'sequel/spin-off', but I know the reason now. I haven't even watched the movie fully yet, and I am already convinced it can't offer me ANYTHING watchable. Look, I didn't like Bruce Almighty, but at least it started with a bang, brought interesting characters immediately (the chef and the too-honest old woman), had a relatively interesting plot with the 'audience is allowed to know things the main character doesn't'-gimmick that worked for the movie, a lot of passion in the main character, somewhat relatable story and so on. This movie.. it's like someone thought it was a good idea (I can't wrap my head around ANYONE thinking ANYTHING about this movie was a good idea on ANY level) to make a mish-mash of Santa Clause, Liar Liar (look at the 'we're not going, are we?'-scene and tell me this movie didn't rip it off), Bruce Almighty and destroy any rule the previous movie established, and didn't realize how BAD a movie it woudl make. First, there's hardly any actual humor in this movie. Second, the characters are bland and unnecessary. Three identical kids? Wife that looks like 'wife' instead of someone with an actual personality (just look at the 'other family' in the Robin Williams movie 'RV' (Runaway Vacation) to see at least some kind of personality), and so on. Fourth, the ACCURSED OBOE MUSIC and 'sad family scenes' because 'father is working too much / crazy'. Is there any scene in this movie that we haven't seen done better in a better movie? Seriously, name any original, good scene from this movie, I DARE YA! The 'husband and wife serious talk' scenes are like watching a copy of a copy of a copy faxed to you and then scanned and printed to a wall where you'd actually rather watch the paint react to light on the wall than that scene. What the F were they thinking? Maybe Steve isn't exactly phoning this in, but he's not very charismatic here, it's almost as if the director is killing his freedom and pushing him to too strict a corner. The constant 'a man HAS to have his b*lls kicked for humor, although we'd NEVER dare do that with a woman'-crap also hits you in the face like a cliché that has worn out its welcome in the 1800s. Heck, watch 'Idiocracy' and realize this movie is an inch away from being 'Ow, My Balls!'. Sure, because it's an ANIMAL doing it, it's different, right? Just switch it from a woman's high-heeled foot to a dog, and it's fresh again, because that's how humor works? Not that kicking in the balls should EVER have been humor in the first place, but that's hollyweird for ya, they just CAN'T LET GO of a misandristic, man-hating 'joke'. Think about it genders reversed, how would audiences react if 97% of movies and 100% of comedies had MULTIPLE SCENES where woman is kicked in the vaggy or tiddies and audience is expected to laugh when she bends over in excruciating pain while moaning and wailing. THINK how equal we truly are, when we can NEVER see this 'b4llkicking scene' genders reversed. And yet it's somehow woman that's always the victim.. In any case, this might be my most incoherent 'review' of a movie, but then again, this movie doesn't deserve anything better. What a piece of crap. Just a couple of interesting things; the premise seems to be the same, but it's completely different; Noah was never 'almighty', Bruce was literally 'God' for awhile, Baxter was just 'Noah'. This means that even the name is WRONG - if he's not almighty, the name of the movie should NOT have the word 'almighty' in it! (Not that Bruce was actually 'almighty' either, when you get down to it, but his powers were inconsistent - it's like the writers changed their minds in the middle, realizing the implications, so they just wrote the line about 'localized powers', but forgot about the moon, stars, tidal waves, etc (which are a very minor consequence of changing moon's orbit compared to what would ACTUALLY happen)..) I got this movie, a couple of cutlery items and 11 hours of Dog Whisperer (so I can at least try to educate some bad dog handler that there are millions everywhere every day even though the information exists and is easily reachable, sigh) for exactly three euros from a thrift store. Three euros for basically four or literally, I don't even know how many items (forgot how many DVDs are in the Dog Whisperer-box), and I STILL feel like I was ripped off. Well, I would, if I didn't think the other items alone are worth three euros and more (and I do, so it's all good).. I mean, I'd probably have paid 10 euros for the Dog Whisperer DVD set alone. However, this movie makes me feel like someone owes me compensation. I mean, 'free will', but I will make you into Noah REGARDLESS OF YOUR WILL. _W_H_A_T_!? Did these people even watch Bruce Almighty? It's like they took Bruce Almighty, removed all the fun, wacky, energetic and interesting parts, and then inserted the typically clichéic family bits with OBOE MUSIC and 'Ow, My Balls!'-segments with the dog, and broke every GOD-DAMN (whatever intended) rule they established in that movie. Free will can't be disturbed, but I can make your head grow beard and hair and disrupt your own decisions about your life, work, etc., and make you wear a LOUSY, dirty, raggy robe! I mean, I GET IT, he's supposed to be 'Noah' (and somehow this movie equates 'Ark' with a 'Boat', when the whole translation and reason why it was called 'Ark' is not only highly debatable and weird, but also the meaning of 'Ark' has nothing to do with 'boat' anyway, and there's even a viewpoint held by some people, that Noah's Ark was actually NOT EVEN A BOAT!), but why couldn't the Divine, OMNIPOTENT Creator give him GOOD-quality, freshly-made, NEW, shiny robes, why did they have to be raggy and dirty-looking, and what kind of sense does ANY OF IT MAKE?! In the first movie, God says, "thou must not tempt God" or whatever (I can't remember the exact quote), and gets a bit angry at constantly having to prove himself to Bruce. In THIS movie, however, he just HAPPILY asks 'do you want more proof', and Baxter doesn't WANT to see more proof.. like, what the F? Wouldn't you want to see as many miracles are you possibly can, and why would God be SO happy and EAGER to prove himself constantly and in stupid ways.. (he's every individual on the street and in other cars, instead of teleporting/transporting his car to another dimension or creating a 'magic mushroom'-like experience, where time stops and everything loses cohesion and shapes become flexible and loose and divine choirs can be heard and and and.. how about UFOs or something? I mean, if you are OMNIPOTENT, and want to PROVE IT and show off, why not do it with some STYLE? Why not do it with 'flying colors' (literal meaning, not idiomatic) and all kinds of WONDERFUL-looking wonders?! Well, besides the 'effects-budget being limited', of course. But going from 'all kinds of wonders mushroom-people are allowed to see' to 'an old guy walking on the street in slightly different clothes' is hardly 'miraculous'. At least change the weather and time, and not just re-use the 'let's look at this scenery from a higher elevation for a bit'-thing from Bruce Almighty, especially if you can't do it as interestingly and dynammically! I mean, the sunlight remains the same throughout, there's no change in lighting. There's HARDLY any change in anything, except that you just see a valley for a few seconds, and that's it. THIS IS REALLY BORING compared to a) what was already done in the other movie and b) what COULD have been done five years later with special effects and all. Have these people seen 'Inception' - as boring as its effects are, at least there's SOME kind of visual quality to it. How about all the superhero movies and Doctor Strange-stuff? But nope, we just get 'old guy walks on the street' and 'look at this boring valley from a much lower elevation in the most boring way possible', and that's about it. Why is forcing Baxter to Noah's role NOT breaking his free will? Why? How? Who thought this movie was a good idea?! I have more, so much more, OH, SO MUCH MORE!! But this movi0e doesn't deserve even this much attention... I plan to do my best to watch it until the end, perhaps it will surprise me. It hasn't yet, and when it has, it has been cringy and made me miss The Office and Michael Scott. It made me wish I was watching Bruce Almighty instead, and I don't even like that movie. It really boggles my mind how these superstar actors are so easily seduced to play these AWFUL roles in this kind of AWFUL, non-charismatic way in the most HORRID movies ever. What do they say to them? Is it blackmail? You see the most BRILLIANT actors ever playing really stupid roles in the worst movies ever made. HOW does this keep happening?! HOWW!!!? No wonder I had never heard of this movie, because it's a stinky turd. Yeah, not very original a comment, but it reflects the originality in the crap of a movie I forced myself to stomach. And it's still not over.. sigh. Ah, did I mention how STUPID this movie is, just by the way? Because it's really, REALLY stupid.