Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

jackgriffin1-1 CANDY SLOANE IS SUPPOSED TO DIE. It sets up the rest of the Spenser novels and affects the way he lives, his attitude towards his abilities, and his relationship with Susan. If it hadn't been a Lifetime film she would have died, but their feminist agenda probably wouldn't allow it. And they threw Hawk and Susan into the film (they weren't in the novel) because the actors were probably under contract. I'm surprised Parker's wife is listed in the credits. She should be ashamed of herself.Avoid this film at all costs and go read the books. This is an insult to a literary legacy.

hangmanjoke You have obviously never read a Spenser novel, if you had you would not say that Joe Mantegna was a good Spenser, and the guys who played Hawk were useless compared to Avery Brooks. Ernie Hudson as Hawk, come on, what a joke. He's a great actor, but he's no Hawk. Anyone who has ever read a Spenser novel will agree Robert Urich WAS Spenser, and Joe Mantegna isn't.Saying that the A&E Spenser is better than the Urich Spenser is just nuts, and shows no taste at all. I agree with the second guy who said that it was an asinine comment, there was only one good Spenser, and he died a few years ago, it was a sad day for all Spenser fans, no matter what anyone says Spenser on TV died with Robert Urich.

flalaw10 Not the best Spenser film, but then again it wasn't that true to the book it was based on (which, while good, was not the best Spenser tale).I am really just commenting on the previous poster, who made an asinine comment that the A&E movie adaptations were superior to the Robert Urich / Avery Brooks films (and t.v. show) I love Joe Montegna. Don't get me wrong. But he is as much the Spenser from Parker's novels as he is Tinkerbell. He is too small and too slight of build. Spenser's ancestry is from the British isles, and no one would ever mistake Montegna for being anything other than he is, Italian. Spenser boxed heavyweight, Montegna, in shape, would barely be a middleweight. Plus, the Hawk in the A&E films was substantially younger than Spenser, and they should be the same age.All in all, read the books. Then watch the original movies for a "truer" adaptation of some of the great mystery novels of the past 50 years.

kilocycles I was a fan of Urich (he was outstanding in Lonesome Dove) but the newer A&E group of Spencer flicks was much better.Savage Place is talky to the extreme. Urich looks pretty good, considering he was ill with the early stages of his cancer, but Avery Brooks seemed to be sleepwalking. Marcia Gay Harden was a much better (and better looking) Susan.The screenplay left several large holes in the plot, to boot! (How DID Spenser find Candy and Jessica, anyway? They were long gone before he started after Candy's SUV, and they were shown making several turns to get to the wooded area where he confronted them. And then Hawk does it too!)I hadn't been aware of this one prior to catching it on the Hallmark Channel -- and was unimpressed.