This movie is special with the fantasy aspects, and I like the relationship between the hostage and kidnapper because it simulates "borrowed time." An aloof courtier with a beautiful woman. A classic tale. The camera work and setting is brilliant as well.

The title of this movie intrigued me somehow and so I hired it. I thought it was funny and I am glad that I did hire it because I did quite enjoy it. The humour was actually quite decent humour and not the typical try-hard humour that most romantic comedies, as this is what A Life Less Ordinary is, tend to display.Now heaven is getting quite upset at the number of relationships that are falling apart so two angels are sent to Earth to bring two people together and if they don't then they cannot return. The two people are completely the opposite, which is typically American, and so the angels see it is basically an impossible task. One of them is a dreamer who works as a cleaner and wants to write trashy novels, while the other is the rich daughter of the guy's employer. The guy is sacked from his job and replaced with robots and then he looses his current girlfriend and is kicked out of home due to unpaid rent. He then, in frustration, barges into his bosses office with a gun and demands his job back.The daughter is simply lazy and a crack shot. A dentist wants to marry her but she is not interested so she decides to test him by shooting an apple off the top of his head. He moves and is hit in the head. She is then brought to her father and is told that she now has to work for his money. Now, she is in the office when he bursts in and he ends up kidnapping her, but it turns out that she knows more about kidnapping than he does so decides to teach him a few lessons.Well, this is how the movie turns out. Of course it is predictable as a romantic comedy as it is not a movie where both parties end up dead, as they do in Romeo and Juliet. In fact, Shakespeare actually wrote a lot of decent romantic comedies, but they are intelligent, unlike the garbage that is churned out of Hollywood these days. A Life Less Ordinary is not one of those garbage movies, though it doesn't really rise to the heights of a Shakespearian comedy.My really only complaint with the movie is how it deals with heaven. Basically God is not in control and sits away from everything letting the world run itself. Occasionally he sticks his hand in to make things run a little smoother but generally he doesn't care. Also, there is the idea that the rich go to heaven and the poor go to hell and there is no way out of that. Really that is just absolute garbage and shows how people seriously don't understand the way God operates. God doesn't judge us on wealth or on how good we've been. Rather he judges us on who we have given our life to. If we have told God to get lost then that is it, we don't want him then he doesn't want us. But if we ask God to be on our side, then he will take us as a friend and welcome us into eternity.

a life less ordinary is one of those movies that just misses the mark.... which is a shame, because it has the potential to be a really good movie.first, the fantasy sequences are not needed, they fall flat, just aren't done well and don't add anything to the movie. the director could learn a lesson from the coehn brothers on how to successfully use fantasy sequences.the whole angel premise is also not needed and just seems really contrived and just gets in the way and muddles everything up.cameron diaz and ewan mcgregor's performances and chemistry are excellent, as are the rest of the performances from the eccentric secondary cast.the scene play is way too all over the place and does not keep you on the edge of your seat, instead i found my mind wandering, thinking to myself, what a job the coehn brothers could have done with this material and actors.oh well, nice try, but i can't recommend this movie other then for the performances of the actors.

This is not a good film. It's enjoyable according to a number of things you can get from many other films. Conventional comedy values built around romantic stories. Escapism in recognizable form for anyone vaguely used to Hollywood. But this is a little bit more than that. It's part of a trilogy of films featuring a trilogy of interesting artists: Boyle/Hodge/McGregor. This set of films was important for it established the basis of 2 interesting and important careers (Hodge in the meanwhile seems to have deviated from interesting stuff, let's hope he comes back). What they did was what one might call experimentalism, or even theoretical experiments leaked onto practical products. Of the 3 films, this is probably the less interesting. It's not especially entertaining, and even as an experiment it's not especially interesting. The point was to pick up a specific genre, romantic comedy in this case, and twist it or at least give it a new edge. The result falls a lot behind what, say, the Coens did in Intolerable Cruelty. Still, McGregor would become a powerful actor, one of the best, and Boyle is always worthwhile no matter what he does, and he's done some impressive stuff since. So, this film becomes a sort of an historical artifact if you want to do archaeological research of their careers.What you learn here is that from the beginning Boyle trusts his intuition, and that vein prevails over how he rationalizes his film conceptions. Those intuitions may be really powerful or come to nothing (like here), but he's always willing to take the chance, and i appreciate him for that, i'll want to see anything from him. And you learn that McGregor, already back here was self-conscious as an actor. He knows he's acting, so the question is not so much to be "real" (as an obscene amount of actors always try to) but to deliver the acting while acknowledging it. That's probably the more fundamental theme of the art in the last century. As far as cinema acting goes, Ewan McGregor may be its state of art.But this film, unless you place it in the perspective of their makers future, is pretty much useless.My opinion: 2/5http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com