I have never read any of the seventy-two novels by author Rex Stout. Did something get lost in the mix? I know original source material is sometimes better than it's screen counterpart. I'm sure throughout the series of books one comes to know Nero Wolfe. His strengths, weaknesses, quips and mannerisms through the personable nature of the written word.
On screen, he verges on boring and the movie as a whole comes off flat. Nero (Maury Chaykin) is meant to be seen as a brilliant detective of his time period - that I understand - but he's also an overweight recluse who never leaves his lavish house (at least not in this "episode") and also has a habit of setting his clock to meal time as delivered by his butler and loves pruning flowers. The movie box calls that "eccentric, ingenious". Draw your own conclusions.
As for the story ... it's a detective murder caper. So naturally Nero's mission is to find the culprit with the help of his legman/assistant, Archie Goodwin (Timothy Hutton). Which leads to another issue. Nero is the main character, but Archie does things, investigates and appears in almost every scene. He isn't a really deep character, but his actions and time spent on screen more than add up to Nero's words.
Then there's the ending. The obligatory one in which Nero explains how - and in slow detail - he knows which person in the room is the killer. My pain is after it's all said and done, I still didn't know who the killer was. I like Maury Chaykin. However how can he generate any interest in Nero when he's meant to be seen as the main character, but does so little in the scope of things? Sitting in a chair waiting for a call from your assistant then forming working theories and hypothesizes isn't terribly exciting.
Fans of the books will likely enjoy this tv-film adaptation, but anyone unfamiliar be forewarned. At one point Nero philosophically says, "I have no questions to ask, but indeed I have questions to ask of myself". I wonder if any of those questions have to do with actually naming the killer or leaving the house.
On screen, he verges on boring and the movie as a whole comes off flat. Nero (Maury Chaykin) is meant to be seen as a brilliant detective of his time period - that I understand - but he's also an overweight recluse who never leaves his lavish house (at least not in this "episode") and also has a habit of setting his clock to meal time as delivered by his butler and loves pruning flowers. The movie box calls that "eccentric, ingenious". Draw your own conclusions.
As for the story ... it's a detective murder caper. So naturally Nero's mission is to find the culprit with the help of his legman/assistant, Archie Goodwin (Timothy Hutton). Which leads to another issue. Nero is the main character, but Archie does things, investigates and appears in almost every scene. He isn't a really deep character, but his actions and time spent on screen more than add up to Nero's words.
Then there's the ending. The obligatory one in which Nero explains how - and in slow detail - he knows which person in the room is the killer. My pain is after it's all said and done, I still didn't know who the killer was. I like Maury Chaykin. However how can he generate any interest in Nero when he's meant to be seen as the main character, but does so little in the scope of things? Sitting in a chair waiting for a call from your assistant then forming working theories and hypothesizes isn't terribly exciting.
Fans of the books will likely enjoy this tv-film adaptation, but anyone unfamiliar be forewarned. At one point Nero philosophically says, "I have no questions to ask, but indeed I have questions to ask of myself". I wonder if any of those questions have to do with actually naming the killer or leaving the house.