Among those many questions the film asks as it views the nature of one man’s existence as a blueprint, perhaps for all of us: what is the purpose of our lives, are we responsible for our happiness, is there a destiny or can we control our fate, what do we owe each other, what do we owe art and most important, what do we owe ourselves?

Crick’s lonely, solitary days as a possibly obsessive compulsive, robotic IRS agent with no love or life in his life end when his wristwatch stops working and decides to tilt Harold’s world on its side, as if with a sudden sweep of the second hand.

Without warning signs to prepare Crick for the extreme changes he is about to experience as Emma Thompson’s novelist --suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block—begins to “narrate” his life back to him, tracking every moment of his existence, counting the brush strokes he makes while brushing his teeth, making him aware of every aspect of his now-examined life. Thompson’s miserable novelist Karen Eiffel, battling a monstrous case of writer’s block , is known for only writing tragedies, a fact that Crick learns from a literary theorist (Dustin Hoffman as Jules Hilbert) who helps Crick understand his place in literary history and realize that his death is imminent. But Crick realizes there is a tragic irony in his death, as he falls in love with Gyllenhaal’s delicious pastry chef Ana Pascal, (whom he meets when he begins to audit her tax return;) Ana’s breezy revolutionary baker teaches him the anarchy of love (as it takes over his life and forces him to change) as well as the mysteries and simple pleasures of milk and cookies and for the first time in his life, he is truly awake and alive, daring to live his life fully. His love for his Ana removes his need for crutches and counted brushstrokes at the same time that his “life” clock begins to tick loudly.

Except for many scenes in which the boom mic is prominent, I found almost every frame of this small, thoughtful film irrresistable. (In retrospect, I can’t help but wonder if the mic being left in the frame is just a mistake; perhaps it is not relevant that the mic appears only in scenes where the narration of his character is being discussed—I don’t remember it in scenes, for example, when he is busy “living” his new, richer life,)

Whether or not you buy the premise (that an author with writer’s block could actually be “writing” and “narrating” a person’s life and could plausibly, cause his death) “Stranger Than Fiction” is worth seeing for at least the following few reasons: Ferrell’s dramatic gifts are enormous and deserve your attention; Zach Helm’s writing is witty but not over-the-top/ sledge-hammer “intellectualized” and the cast, as an ensemble, are seamless and as powerful as Crick’s own “magic” watch.

Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson), Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman), Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Penny Escher (Queen Latifah)

Directed by Marc Forster; written by Zach Helm; director of photography, Roberto Schaefer; edited by Matt Chesse; music by Britt Daniel; production designer, Kevin Thompson; produced by Lindsay Doran; released by Columbia Pictures.

Running time: 1hr 45 mins.

Go see “Stranger Than Fiction”

I could see a lot of people not liking this film, but I loved it. It’s got a sophisticated humor to it without being coldly intellectual. It’s a cozy film. Every character in this film gives the audience someone they would normally hate, but for some reason we can’t. Ferrell, plays an IRS agent half Spok, half Rainman, but likeable anyway. Thompson, plays the chain-smoking writer who always kills off her hero, but she suffers writer’s block so we like her anyway. Gyllenhaal plays a politically-militant, bakery owner who openly hates Ferrell, but she really seems to care about people so we like her. Even Queen Latifah’s character, whose job it is to annoy Thompson into finishing her book, is lovable for her concern for the writer’s health. Last but not least, Hoffman’s character is the kind of English professor that failed you, and me too, back in college. But the seriousness with which he tackles Ferrell’s problem is charming.

I found this film entertaining. There’s some good laughs too.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

It’s not a movie anyone under 18 would enjoy. The humor is aimed at us literary types. I think the adult content is at pretty appropriate levels for the target market. For example there’s a scene when a bus collides with someone and it’s neither graphic nor cartoonish. The female love interest in the film, Ana Pascal, is the kind of overtly sexual gal that dresses for effect—the I’m trying not to be sexy, but I can’t help it—kinda thing. Of course Maggie Gyllenhaal is incredibly beautiful.

And of course there’s “sexual scenarios,” which is the over-amped Hollywood way of saying two nearly-clothed people are laying in bed together and they aren’t married yet. While its not good roll modeling I don’t think kids should look to movie characters as roll models. Hopefully they will get their morality from a parent.

What if I hate Will Ferrell?

This is a very different Will Ferrell. If you truly hate him you probably won’t change your mind but this isn’t Ricky Bobby. Ferrell helps the film makers pull off the nearly impossible task of showing us a boring man’s life without boring us.

Larger Story

It’s too obvious. There are some great lines in there about being a character in a story, which of course we are. The best is when Hoffman tells Ferrell that he needs to figure out whether he’s in a comedy or a tragedy. Ferrell asks what the difference is and Hoffman replies that in the end of a tragedy he dies, in a comedy he gets hitched.