Mind Prey (1999)

Masterful Movie

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Blistering performances.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Eriquie La-salle mopes his way through another movie since leaving "ER". the acting is good, the cast is good, it's an alright movie just out-dated. they even tried to update by the detective being some kind of gamer. And this guy being his best fan.Oh-kay a serial (Killer/Rapist/kidnapper) has kid-napped a mother and her kids to play a game of cat and mouse with the detective who investigated him from before. Hey don't get me wrong i used to love these movies back in the day. i'd watch rent them and woo wooo woo. But now with three different "CSI", Numbers, Criminal Minds,this seem old and outdated.

The late Lawrence Sanders created one of the most interesting characters and series of novels with Archie McNally, the witty, erudite and completely engaging playboy-investigator for his father's prestigious Palm Beach law firm. After his death, these novels were undertaken by Vincent Lardo, who has maintained the character/series (in my opinion) even better than Mr. Sanders.Stuart Woods has created a character, Stone Barrington, a well-to-do New York City lawyer and ex-police officer, who troubleshoots the important cases for a major law firm where intrigue and danger are involved.However, John Sandford's Lucas Davenport is a character equal to, and perhaps even a bit more interesting than these other two handsome, urbane and competent investigators. The "Prey" novels are all superb, and amount to the best efforts in this genre, ever. Lucas spends a great deal of his time up to his ass in snow and ice in the north country, in Minneapolis and other parts of Minnesota, North Dakota, etc. And he's a bit "rougher" than the other two fellows, but perhaps even a bit smarter, and like them, well-to-do and probably the richest of the three.All three authors have developed these key characters (along with their main cohorts) so that you have the most vivid pictures of them in your mind. Being the most prolific of the three, you'll see a bit more of Lucas than Stone or Archie. However, with characters like these, you never tire of them, and look forward eagerly to their next appearances. Since my first readings of all three, I haven't failed once to get every new offering at retail/hardcover, as soon as available.But ---- whoever thought-up this presentation should seek counseling, not just from a U.S. shrink, but should visit a team in Vienna. Eriq LaSalle is an excellent actor. But his resemblance of the character, and his presentation of the role in this flick, is farther afield than: (a) Mickey Roonery as Rhett Butler; (b) Woody Allen as Huey Long; (c) George Hamilton as Malcolm X; (d) or even Yakov Smirnoff as Abraham Lincoln.I'm just surprised than John Sandford allowed this presentation to be completed in this fashion, and with this casting and portrayal of the character who is the most significant aspect of an outstanding, diversified writing career. I cannot help but believed he and/or his agent and attorney somehow signed an agreement with some fine print they failed to read thoroughly.Some aspects of the story were presented in "O.K." fashion -- however, this film has to get only 1*, for the total failure to present a lead character even vaguely resembling the actual.

I agree with most of the other posters here that Mind Prey was not adapted well at all, and almost an insult to the edgy writing of John Sandford. Anyone who has read the books is likely to be disappointed in this poorly casted and very weakly adapted made for TV movie.I personally have never cared for Eric LaSalle's acting style. Because he is so deadpan in every role he is in, ER's moody Dr. Peter Benton playing Lucas Davenport - I do not think LaSalle has the acting range nor passion to make a role like Lucas believable. I saw this movie as no more than a vanity project for LaSalle {he has a producing credit, too} - he should have stayed on ER.Also, the lisp of Black {who is gay in the books} was the last straw to me, and removed any shred of respect I had for the attempt to make this story into a movie.My own casting opinion would be an actor such as Ralph Fiennes for Davenport - low key, but capable of intense acting. And maybe Madchen Amick as Weather. But those of us who have read the books know that Sandford's heavily layered and detailed stories may be difficult to adapt to film at all.

This film is very dark, and is a far cry from any of the forgettable "Disease of The Week" telefilms that many have come to love. The photography and acting were solid and John Sanford's weak playboy character of Lucas Davenport was made more complex and much more interesting in the film version. Edgy film making and brutal scenes will bother some. Many local ABC affils. did not air the film because they felt it was offensive.Great TV film! LaSalle does well