Directed by:
Clint EastwoodScreenplay:
Brian HelgelandCinematography:
Tom SternComposer:
Lennie NiehausCast:
Clint Eastwood, Jeff Daniels, Anjelica Huston, Wanda De Jesus, Tina Lifford, Paul Rodriguez, Dylan Walsh, Rick Hoffman, Glenn Morshower, Greg Stechman (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
Retired FBI profiler Terry McCaleb (Clint Eastwood), who has recently had a heart transplant, is hired by Graciela Rivers (Wanda de Jesus), to investigate the death of her sister, Gloria, who happens to have given McCaleb his heart. On the case, he soon deducts that the killer, who staged the murder to look like a random robbery, may actually be a serial killer Terry was trailing for years in the FBI. Can the elderly and feeble McCaleb, who had intended to spend his retirement living on his boat in the Los Angeles harbor, and who can't drive, and has to nap regularly, muster up the endurance to find the killer? (Warner Bros. AU)
(more)Reviews (4)
Blood Work is and old-school and somewhat predictable mystery with a more or less satisfying point. The film is kept afloat by Clint Eastwood’s charisma, but it would have been a better fit for Jack Nicholson guided by Sean Penn as a director.
()
The ideal three-star film, simply average, it doesn't suck or impress. The viewer spends a pleasant 110 minutes in the company of a guy with a heart transplant, Clint, who shows that he hasn't forgotten how to direct, although in this case he doesn't perform any miracles. True, the villain didn’t have to be so easily predictable, but in a one-view film, that's not a problem.
()
A very unnecessary crime film in which a seventy-year-old Eastwood searches for an easily predictable killer with bulldog determination and even manages to acquire a partner many decades younger. I simply don't buy into this from the creators. Thankfully, Clint himself is behind the direction, so the pace hardly ever slackens, but everything is too predictable and visually surprisingly sterile.
()
As I've mentioned in many reviews, Michael Connelly is one of my favorite crime authors. However, movies and series based on his books often miss the mark, lacking the captivating storylines and logic that make his novels feel like a quality Swiss watch. I struggle to understand why screenwriters feel the need to "enhance" stories that are already so well-crafted. In this case, yes, the story was altered to fit a certain duration, but why the unnecessary additional changes? For example, I couldn’t wrap my head around why they completely changed the identity of the main villain. It just didn’t make any sense. And Terrell McCaleb? Based on Connelly's description, I imagined him differently. Clint Eastwood, whom I usually love, didn't quite fit the role. The story in this form didn’t work out well in terms of acting or directing, and I can only console myself with the thought that it could have been worse. / Lesson learned: Call an ambulance before you need to. You never know...
()