*** Official "BLOOD WORK" Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Blood Work". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.
Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!
If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.
Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, it looks like I'm the first one with a review of Clint's latest movie. This film was okay, certainly, not one of Eastwood's best, but I had a fairly good time watching it. The outcome of the film is relatively easy to figure out, but the actors and some of the dialogue slightly made up for the easy film resolution. Anyhow, it's an average film with some interesting plot angles. I'll give it :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star:
Crawdaddy

 

[LennyP]

For me it was thrilling to again really feel a Clint Eastwood movie. Everything about it felt familiar, like home. The opening jazzy music which he incorporates in all of his films, the lone title and quick beginning, the story is familiar, he's a retired former FBI agent with cops and others not liking him very much. Just give him a bigger gun and change to former cop, moving setting from LA to San Francisco and you got yourself Dirty Harry 6.
The concept is interesting, but I won't talk about it because trailers were great at not showing you anything, it's very well written and you don't have to worry about its masterful directing. It's a nice, old fashioned detective story, less action, more suspense, I really liked it. Major supporting role is played by Jeff Daniels who's a very underrated actor and shows that here again.
With it's down to earth, realistic investigation, whenever a bit of action comes up, you feel thrilled and in the moment, it's very well done.
:star: :star: :star: :star: out of 5

 

[Jason Seaver]

Clint Eastwood is almost like Woody Allen - every year or two, he directs a new movie, starring in it about half the time, and it generally feels fairly familiar, a good thing if you like Eastwood. He's a much more nuanced actor than Allen, though, so even if he is playing a variation on a basic persona, it doesn't come off as lack of range - it's a good actor/director making use of his iconic status.
Blood Work isn't a major movie; I wouldn't say Warner was dumping it in August, but I hadn't seen a preview before going in. It's also got something less than an A-list cast. This isn't a bad thing; the effect is something like picking up the latest in a paperback mystery series, where the main character is a familiar old friend, but the supporting cast needs to be discovered. It works for this particular movie.
Eastwood is the star, though, but he's not cast as an action hero here; at 72, that would be a bit ridiculous. Indeed, his character suffers a heart attack in the first reel, and we pick up two years later, after a successful heart transplant. Eastwood has grown old on film gracefully and honestly, but it's quite astounding how well he does it here: his character doesn't trust himself to drive, and he really seems to become weaker as the movie goes on. Eastwood the actor balances intelligence and stubbornness with pragmatism, while Eastwood the director lets the mystery unfold at a nice pace, playing fair with the audience and supplying all the clues you could want.
If I've got a complaint, it's with the last act - it's got a good villain who plays off Eastwood well, but to a certain extent, all the good work that had been done in demonstrating the Eastwood character's infirmity is undone, with not one but two fairly physical action scenes. Sure, I was convinced Clint Eastwood could handle them, but could this Terry McCaleb he was playing?
Overall, though, an enjoyable detective movie. :star::star::star:

 

[Tim Glover]

enjoyable and somewhat suspenseful. Kind of thought that some of the scenes/moments fell flat. But all in all, I give it 3 stars.

 

[doug zdanivsky]

Good grief!! This from the guy who gave us Unforgiven?! Say it ain't so, Clint!
I felt like I was back in the 80's and watching a 2 hour Hunter special.. Bad, BAD dialogue, painfully bad acting, totally transparent plot..
The little respect I had for Ebert and whats-his-face is now totally gone if this kind of drivel gets a two thimbs up...
None of you thought it was totally predictable? With wince-inducing dialogue? "Damn you Macayleb!", and so forth?.
This just in, EW gave it a B! Has the world gone mad?!?
Administrator note: One post per official review thread, please; for give-and-take, please use the official discussion thread.