In "Blood Work" Eastwood plays an FBI agent, recovering from a heart transplant, who is asked by the sister of the murdered woman whose heart he received to find her killer. The result is surprisingly even and interesting murder mystery in which we see Eastwood piece together the evidence pointing to the killer while dealing with heart transplant issues and making nice with his pro bono client. The film has fewer plot holes than most murder mysteries; leans more toward human interest than derring-dos; and is another example of Eastwood successfully pushing out the age envelope in a self-directed film product. Recommended for more mature couch potatoes into murder mysteries. (B)
303 Reviews
My heart is yours.
lost-in-limbo23 September 2008
'Blood Work' sees actor/director Clint Eastwood ease into a more traditional, mature and work-heavy detective story based upon Michael Connelly's novel. We follow that of FBI profiler Terry McCaleb on the trail of a serial killer who likes to play games with him, before his heart eventually gives up on him during a chase. He's a cardiac patient that receives a heart from a murder victim, and the donor's sister asks him to come out of retirement (which is two years after the heart-attack) to use that second chance to help find her killer.
After an excellently dark, brooding opening it goes onto settle for a cruising old-fashion, but by-the-numbers thriller. It's the eerie mystery that invokes the tension, not the small-added slabs of violence and action. It's a character story. Nothing surprises, but its elaborated make-up and cluey puzzles are absorbingly plotted by Brian Helgeland's elegantly dry screenplay, as we watch the psychical and mental decay first break down, but eventually go on to help rebuild our main protagonist. Mainly through his bond with the lady he's helping out. Even a connection is kind of hinted between the killer and Eastwood's ex-profiler like the one in 'Tightrope' (1984). The relationship that unfolds and expectations that arose, especially after the killer's unmasking and his cunning intentions being revealed is unnerving in that endearing sense. The psychological torment and involvement is well-judged too. This observation can be seen in Eastwood's rock-like performance, which still shows cracks of vulnerability.
Looking comfortable in front of the camera, behind is exactly the same with his economical direction driving the way. Edgy suspense is well-place and timed amongst a gritty backdrop and dreary colour scheme. Lennie Niehaus' soothingly savoury blues score, Tom Stern's sharply pastel cinematography and Joel Cox's swift editing strengthen the already professionally competent production. First-rate performances engulf the feature. Wanda De Jesus strong-willed turn is amiable. Jeff Daniel's lazy; oddball (almost comic) performance is a fine, versatile addition. A cynical Paul Rodriguez and a solid Dylan Walsh are good as two jealous detectives. Tina Lafford is pleasingly sound as a detective/good friend of McCaleb and Anjelica Huston is fiery blunt as Dr. Bonnie Fox.
A satisfyingly better than average thriller fable headed by the ever-reliable Eastwood.
After an excellently dark, brooding opening it goes onto settle for a cruising old-fashion, but by-the-numbers thriller. It's the eerie mystery that invokes the tension, not the small-added slabs of violence and action. It's a character story. Nothing surprises, but its elaborated make-up and cluey puzzles are absorbingly plotted by Brian Helgeland's elegantly dry screenplay, as we watch the psychical and mental decay first break down, but eventually go on to help rebuild our main protagonist. Mainly through his bond with the lady he's helping out. Even a connection is kind of hinted between the killer and Eastwood's ex-profiler like the one in 'Tightrope' (1984). The relationship that unfolds and expectations that arose, especially after the killer's unmasking and his cunning intentions being revealed is unnerving in that endearing sense. The psychological torment and involvement is well-judged too. This observation can be seen in Eastwood's rock-like performance, which still shows cracks of vulnerability.
Looking comfortable in front of the camera, behind is exactly the same with his economical direction driving the way. Edgy suspense is well-place and timed amongst a gritty backdrop and dreary colour scheme. Lennie Niehaus' soothingly savoury blues score, Tom Stern's sharply pastel cinematography and Joel Cox's swift editing strengthen the already professionally competent production. First-rate performances engulf the feature. Wanda De Jesus strong-willed turn is amiable. Jeff Daniel's lazy; oddball (almost comic) performance is a fine, versatile addition. A cynical Paul Rodriguez and a solid Dylan Walsh are good as two jealous detectives. Tina Lafford is pleasingly sound as a detective/good friend of McCaleb and Anjelica Huston is fiery blunt as Dr. Bonnie Fox.
A satisfyingly better than average thriller fable headed by the ever-reliable Eastwood.
Good For One Viewing
ccthemovieman-18 December 2005
I found this to be one of those films I really enjoyed on the first viewing, but once you know the surprise ending, the second viewing isn't nearly as good.
It's a typically-entertaining Clint Eastwood film. He makes few dull movies, I'll say that for him. Now that he's gotten older, his weather-beaten face makes him all the more interesting to view.
I didn't find Anjelica Huston's weather-beaten face, however, as believable. Her tough demeanor, including vocabulary, is not something a doctor would have, as she plays here. Paul Rodriguez also is stupidly profane in his role but he does have a few funny lines.
The main attraction of the story is the twist near the end so, as mentioned, one look is just about right for this film...and it is worth one look f you want a decent diversion for one night.
It's a typically-entertaining Clint Eastwood film. He makes few dull movies, I'll say that for him. Now that he's gotten older, his weather-beaten face makes him all the more interesting to view.
I didn't find Anjelica Huston's weather-beaten face, however, as believable. Her tough demeanor, including vocabulary, is not something a doctor would have, as she plays here. Paul Rodriguez also is stupidly profane in his role but he does have a few funny lines.
The main attraction of the story is the twist near the end so, as mentioned, one look is just about right for this film...and it is worth one look f you want a decent diversion for one night.
The cast make it work but the ending is just so disappointing
Chrysanthepop5 July 2008
Clintwood's 'Blood Work' may not be the best nor most stylish of its genre but it remains enjoyable for the most part mainly because of the cast. It's quite a simple film but I found the end revelation disappointing and the last half hour is a little too dramatic. During the entire first hour, Eastwood cleverly avoids excessive violence and gore and smoothly lets the tension build. Clintwood is supported by a brilliant cast that includes the fabulous Anjelica Huston, the elegant Wanda de Jesus, the charming Tina Lifford and the funny Jeff Daniels. The cast does well but Daniels's performance is ruined by the overdone last half hour. The film rests on Eastwood and it's great to see him play such a role at 71 and pull it off so well. The jazzy background score gives 'Blood Work' a classy touch. Thus, to sum it up, one can expect a simple but engaging whodunnit thriller which is ruined a bit by the ending but Eastwood and his cast prevent it from being a waste of time.
Satisfying, non-think thriller; not a blockbuster for Eastwood
moonspinner5525 September 2005
Retired FBI detective helps a young woman solve the murder of her sister--but he's got a personal motive: he himself received a heart transplant from the victim! Not a bad vehicle for Eastwood, convincingly raspy and worn, and still imposing when he has to be. Brian Helgeland's screenplay via Michael Connelly's novel is full of police clichés, and the denouement isn't terribly surprising, but Clint has become a reassuring presence on the screen: his shortcomings and realistic aches and pains make him wonderfully human. Supporting cast including Jeff Daniels and Angelica Huston is also good, making the best out of a routine, unmemorable script. **1/2 from ****
Decent with unbelievable ending
jstu91 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I found the first 3/4 of this movie actually pretty solid. I quite enjoyed it. Though much of it is quite predictable, I found myself interested in the film... until the end.
It's just the complete unbelievability of the ending that ruined the movie for me. I won't put spoilers here, but I just shook my head on some of the scenes...
It's just the complete unbelievability of the ending that ruined the movie for me. I won't put spoilers here, but I just shook my head on some of the scenes...
A silly third-act reveal almost derails this decently dark detective drama.
Pjtaylor-96-13804420 March 2018
One of Eastwood's best and most underrated directorial efforts sees him as an ageing detective fitted with a new heart and haunted by his past. 'Blood Work (2002)' is sort of Eastwood's reflection on the genre that 'Dirty Harry (1972)' helped solidify, in the same way 'Unforgiven (1992)' was an interesting counterbalance to the 'Man With No Name' trilogy so seminal to the western. The picture is generally unglamorously gritty but occasionally slips into silliness and convention. The obvious yet nonsensical villainous reveal is ham-fisted and forced at best, being a wholly unnecessary addition to the book that comes across quite cheap. The flick withstands its few flaws thanks to how entertaining it is, with the fact that its hero feels as though he could keel over from a simple heart-attack any minute making it all the more exciting. 7/10
Dirty Harry's final case (not really, but seems like it)
Wuchakk7 March 2019
Recovering from a heart transplant, a retired FBI profiler (Clint Eastwood) takes a case as a private investigator because of his amazing link to one of the victims. Jeff Daniels plays his amusing neighbor, a dock bum, while Wanda De Jesus appears as his potential girlfriend.
"Blood Work" (2002) was based on a Michael Connelly novel and his corresponding protagonist, Terry McCaleb, but the movie comes across as Dirty Harry's final case after retirement, sorta like "Gran Torino" (2008) was akin to "Dirty Harry, the Golden Years."
Eastwood was 71 during shooting, but his character is roughly eight years younger and he pulls it off. I point this out to stress that he's no longer kick-axx Dirty Harry. This is an aged, retired and recovering detective working on what is likely his last case. A lot of dialog is devoted to emphasizing how over-the-hill he is and how horrible he looks.
So, while this is a gritty big city detective flick in the mold of Dirty Harry, it's way more subdued and mature. It's more dramatic and less compelling. If you can roll with that, it's a decent detective movie. It's relatively realistic until the ending, which features a twist that I didn't foresee (although others say they did). The climax is unlikely and smacks of a typical Hollywood ending. "A Simple Plan" (1998) did the same thing: a believable story that takes a "Yeah, right" turn at the close.
The film runs 1 hour, 50 minutes and was shot in the Los Angeles area. Anjelica Huston also appears as a doctor while Paul Rodriguez is on hand as a cranky Hispanic detective.
GRADE: C+/B-
"Blood Work" (2002) was based on a Michael Connelly novel and his corresponding protagonist, Terry McCaleb, but the movie comes across as Dirty Harry's final case after retirement, sorta like "Gran Torino" (2008) was akin to "Dirty Harry, the Golden Years."
Eastwood was 71 during shooting, but his character is roughly eight years younger and he pulls it off. I point this out to stress that he's no longer kick-axx Dirty Harry. This is an aged, retired and recovering detective working on what is likely his last case. A lot of dialog is devoted to emphasizing how over-the-hill he is and how horrible he looks.
So, while this is a gritty big city detective flick in the mold of Dirty Harry, it's way more subdued and mature. It's more dramatic and less compelling. If you can roll with that, it's a decent detective movie. It's relatively realistic until the ending, which features a twist that I didn't foresee (although others say they did). The climax is unlikely and smacks of a typical Hollywood ending. "A Simple Plan" (1998) did the same thing: a believable story that takes a "Yeah, right" turn at the close.
The film runs 1 hour, 50 minutes and was shot in the Los Angeles area. Anjelica Huston also appears as a doctor while Paul Rodriguez is on hand as a cranky Hispanic detective.
GRADE: C+/B-
An ordinary work
muons12 July 2018
The basic storyline is about a murderer who likes to play cat and mouse with an FBI agent. McCaleb is an aged agent retired after having a heart transplant but still dragged into action. Though scenario has almost no rationality the movie is entertaining enough for Dirty Harry fans (although McCaleb character doesn't have much common with Harry). McCaleb and Graciella characters are well developed but the two policemen who hate McCaleb (a worn-out cliche) are almost caricatured. Wanda De Jesus looks like a miscast for a woman who'd be interested in an old ailing man. The plot for solving the mystery about the identity of the murderer is laughable. The incentives of the murderer are even less clear except maybe that he's a nutcase. With the way things develop, the twist could sort of be guessed towards the end of story. The movie is a reminiscent of 70's police series on TV. An unambitious and ordinary work with no brainy edge but good for a couple of hours of diversion.
Not bad, but ultimately conventional.
Hey_Sweden18 August 2018
Producer / director / star Clint Eastwood is in fine form here, in this Brian Helgeland-scripted adaptation of the novel by Michael Connelly. Eastwood plays Terry McCaleb, a former FBI agent who suffered a bad heart attack while pursuing a suspect from a murder scene. Two years later, he's alive and doing well thanks to a heart transplant. He learns that the woman whose heart he inherited was a victim of that killer from two years ago, and is implored by the woman's sister (Wanda De Jesus) to get justice for her sibling. Enlisting the services of a neighbour (Jeff Daniels, supplying all the comedy relief), Terry agrees to do his own investigating into the matter.
"Blood Work" is not at all bad of its type. It's well-made and well-acted. The strong supporting cast also includes Anjelica Huston, Paul Rodriguez (as a hostile jerk detective, the kind of character you sometimes see in cop movies of this ilk), Dylan Walsh, and Tina Lifford. Part of the effectiveness lies in detailing the evolving relationship between Terry and Graciella, who is now taking care of her late sisters' son (Mason Lucero); he feels a responsibility to the person who helped to save his life, while she can't shake the feeling that she might be asking too much of him. After all, his doctor (Huston) is worried about his current health.
While I'm told that the novel is a more nuanced and satisfying read, the film version ultimately becomes quite predictable, leading to a standard suspense-and-action finale where the previously subtle villain starts tearing into the scenery. But up to then, we get a fairly interesting yarn about a "connection", of sorts, between a hero cop and his quarry. It's all handled with a respectable amount of sensitivity by Eastwood and company, and does keep ones' attention. It's complete with your standard twists and red herrings, as well as some mild doses of sex and violence. It's also nice to see Eastwood acknowledge advancing age with a part that really fits him like a glove.
Seven out of 10.
"Blood Work" is not at all bad of its type. It's well-made and well-acted. The strong supporting cast also includes Anjelica Huston, Paul Rodriguez (as a hostile jerk detective, the kind of character you sometimes see in cop movies of this ilk), Dylan Walsh, and Tina Lifford. Part of the effectiveness lies in detailing the evolving relationship between Terry and Graciella, who is now taking care of her late sisters' son (Mason Lucero); he feels a responsibility to the person who helped to save his life, while she can't shake the feeling that she might be asking too much of him. After all, his doctor (Huston) is worried about his current health.
While I'm told that the novel is a more nuanced and satisfying read, the film version ultimately becomes quite predictable, leading to a standard suspense-and-action finale where the previously subtle villain starts tearing into the scenery. But up to then, we get a fairly interesting yarn about a "connection", of sorts, between a hero cop and his quarry. It's all handled with a respectable amount of sensitivity by Eastwood and company, and does keep ones' attention. It's complete with your standard twists and red herrings, as well as some mild doses of sex and violence. It's also nice to see Eastwood acknowledge advancing age with a part that really fits him like a glove.
Seven out of 10.
The Book Really was good. I hope they don't do this to Bosch
pepsimoron16 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Hollywood screenwriters probably object to putting a scene where a witness is hypnotized to get details of the crime. Unfortunately the entire novel pivots on this scene. Instead Clint (who's supposed to be not only a 2 month post op heart transplant patient, but also 42 or so) is dodging speeding cars, wielding shotguns, punching people out etc... Now I agree that much of the investigation in the novel involves Terry sitting at his desk looking over notes and watching videotapes, but if they had kept to the original story they would have had the really suspenseful action sequence and the killer that makes more sense. The only good thing about this movie is that in 2 or 3 novels that Connelly wrote after (with the same characters) they make jokes about how Terry's friend was made to be the murderer in the Clint Eastwood adaptation of their lives. Hopefully when the Harry Bosch series start coming out as films, they will come out more like the dark noir that they are meant to be and less brainless shoot em ups. There's plenty of action in his novels, and he even admits that there is a lot of Dirty Harry in his cop. Anyhow, I highly recommend the books, its sad that this one was represented in such a shallow light.
Still grand to see Eastwood be his old cool self, albeit with a bad ticker
Quinoa198410 August 2002
Clint Eastwood's 20th feature directed and starring himself, Blood Work, is a good sign in times of recent thriller drek. Here is Clint, 72 years old, and actually doing the right thing; being the old sort of Dirty Harry-esquire type of cop while still being realistic with himself. Truth be told, he won't do movies forever, much less be a cop with almost all the right moves, and here we see him as FBI Agent Terry McCaleb in the beginning try and climb a fence to catch a code killer (which resonates from past Eastwood projects) and he collapses from a heart attack (sad but oddly accurate). He retires, and two years later a woman comes forth to him asking for help in finding a killer.
And anyway, what makes Blood Work so fascinating (if only up to a point if seen more than once) is that it's a well crafted thriller, one that has the usual police procedural from many years back, a bit of a romance with Wanda DeJesus, and comic relief from Jeff Daniels. So, if you decide to see this latest installment in the sprawling career of Clint Eastwood, keep in mind that it has all the style, music, and nostalgia even in donuts that it had back in the day 30 years ago. And maybe it's just me, but it will be hard not to grin when you see him grab a gun. B+
And anyway, what makes Blood Work so fascinating (if only up to a point if seen more than once) is that it's a well crafted thriller, one that has the usual police procedural from many years back, a bit of a romance with Wanda DeJesus, and comic relief from Jeff Daniels. So, if you decide to see this latest installment in the sprawling career of Clint Eastwood, keep in mind that it has all the style, music, and nostalgia even in donuts that it had back in the day 30 years ago. And maybe it's just me, but it will be hard not to grin when you see him grab a gun. B+
No one thought this plot was a little off the wall, huh?
blanche-219 October 2014
"Blood Work" stars Clint Eastwood, Jeff Daniels, Wanda de Jesus, Angelica Huston, and Tina Lifford.
Eastwood plays Terry McCaleb, an FBI man who chases a suspect, shoots him, and has a near-fatal heart attack. In the next scene, we see him with his doctor (Huston). He's had a heart transplant. He lives on a boat, and he is visited by a woman (de Jesus) who asks him to look into the murder of her sister. He explains that he's retired. She informs him that he has her sister's heart.
I was entertained by this film, I love Clint Eastwood, and I love many of his films. This wasn't one of his better ones, but he was good. The plot -- the motive for the killings -- left me cold, as the execution of it seemed chancy, and the reason for it bizarre. Also there was the typical casting error that's always made. I never know why. Really spoils it.
I'm sure I'm going to sound like some crazed aggressive feminist, which I assure you I'm not, but here we go again. We've got Clint Eastwood, in his seventies here, chasing people after a heart transplant. He's like Superman. When he was 67, in Absolute Power, he was jumping out of windows. No one questions it, just like no one questions Harrison Ford or any other elderly male actor having costars half their age and still playing leads. Yet women stars are sidelined because of age.
The age is now higher, and yes, if you're Judy Dench or Helen Mirren or Meryl Streep, you too can star in a movie. And yes, it's better than it was. It's not good enough. We're lucky that there are people who want to write and produce scripts for these stars, but look at everyone else - Angelica Huston, Sally Field, Meg Ryan, all the way back, whose sell-by date relegates them to character roles.
Eastwood was too old for Bridges of Madison Cunty, he was too old for Absolute Power, and he was too old for this. I don't love him any less; I grew up watching him. But the movie world tells us it's natural for your mother to be around her son's age (Angela Lansbury-Laurence Harvey), 14 years older than your daughter (Kate Nelligan-Sandra Bullock), a girlfriend to someone, and then, ten years later, the same actor's mother (Tom Hanks-Sally Field).
Once on TV, Kaye Ballard asked a casting agent why a 30-year-old is sometimes cast as the mother of a 29-year old male. The agent said she didn't know, but her husband was 31 and the woman playing his mother on a show was 32. Go figure. There's a 28-year difference between Wanda de Jesus and Clint Eastwood. I want to see Susan Sarandon on screen with her romantic lead 28 years younger. We'd never stop hearing about it.
Eastwood plays Terry McCaleb, an FBI man who chases a suspect, shoots him, and has a near-fatal heart attack. In the next scene, we see him with his doctor (Huston). He's had a heart transplant. He lives on a boat, and he is visited by a woman (de Jesus) who asks him to look into the murder of her sister. He explains that he's retired. She informs him that he has her sister's heart.
I was entertained by this film, I love Clint Eastwood, and I love many of his films. This wasn't one of his better ones, but he was good. The plot -- the motive for the killings -- left me cold, as the execution of it seemed chancy, and the reason for it bizarre. Also there was the typical casting error that's always made. I never know why. Really spoils it.
I'm sure I'm going to sound like some crazed aggressive feminist, which I assure you I'm not, but here we go again. We've got Clint Eastwood, in his seventies here, chasing people after a heart transplant. He's like Superman. When he was 67, in Absolute Power, he was jumping out of windows. No one questions it, just like no one questions Harrison Ford or any other elderly male actor having costars half their age and still playing leads. Yet women stars are sidelined because of age.
The age is now higher, and yes, if you're Judy Dench or Helen Mirren or Meryl Streep, you too can star in a movie. And yes, it's better than it was. It's not good enough. We're lucky that there are people who want to write and produce scripts for these stars, but look at everyone else - Angelica Huston, Sally Field, Meg Ryan, all the way back, whose sell-by date relegates them to character roles.
Eastwood was too old for Bridges of Madison Cunty, he was too old for Absolute Power, and he was too old for this. I don't love him any less; I grew up watching him. But the movie world tells us it's natural for your mother to be around her son's age (Angela Lansbury-Laurence Harvey), 14 years older than your daughter (Kate Nelligan-Sandra Bullock), a girlfriend to someone, and then, ten years later, the same actor's mother (Tom Hanks-Sally Field).
Once on TV, Kaye Ballard asked a casting agent why a 30-year-old is sometimes cast as the mother of a 29-year old male. The agent said she didn't know, but her husband was 31 and the woman playing his mother on a show was 32. Go figure. There's a 28-year difference between Wanda de Jesus and Clint Eastwood. I want to see Susan Sarandon on screen with her romantic lead 28 years younger. We'd never stop hearing about it.
Ruins the book's reputation
vyperman717 August 2002
The movie Bloodwork is written and directed by Eastwood. While I would never criticize Eastwood's acting ability, he sucks ass as a screenwriter.
The movie did not follow the book at all, and the book is one of the best books I have ever read. If only they could have captured that on film. The only thing that they got right was using the title.
From a movie standpoint, if I had never read the book, I would give it a 7/10. It was a decent murder mystery. But the book brings you into the way McCaleb thinks, and the growing relationship between Graciela and Eastwood.
All I can say, is to read the book. You will get a much better experience from it. The book is written excellently and the story unfolds just perfectly. In the movie many things are rushed and just shoved in to try and resemble the book.
Book : 10/10
Movie : 7/10
The movie did not follow the book at all, and the book is one of the best books I have ever read. If only they could have captured that on film. The only thing that they got right was using the title.
From a movie standpoint, if I had never read the book, I would give it a 7/10. It was a decent murder mystery. But the book brings you into the way McCaleb thinks, and the growing relationship between Graciela and Eastwood.
All I can say, is to read the book. You will get a much better experience from it. The book is written excellently and the story unfolds just perfectly. In the movie many things are rushed and just shoved in to try and resemble the book.
Book : 10/10
Movie : 7/10
Blood Runs Dry by the Latter Acts.
tfrizzell27 April 2003
Clint Eastwood's direction sadly loses its way late in this otherwise suspenseful drama from the co-writer of "L.A. Confidential" (Brian Helgeland). Eastwood is a famous detective, but a massive heart attack just as he is about to catch a crazed serial killer forces him to an early retirement. Fast-forward a bit and Eastwood has received a new heart from a woman who has recently passed away. Slowly, but surely Eastwood's body is accepting the new organ and it appears that a healthy recovery is imminent. Things change though as a Hispanic woman (Wanda De Jesus) pays Eastwood a visit one day and explains that his new heart come from her younger sister, a woman who was killed in a convenient store. Quickly it becomes crystal clear that the killer in the store is in fact the same man who eluded Eastwood earlier. Now Eastwood is back one last time with a score to settle. Through Eastwood's journey he has to indulge a pesky neighbor (Jeff Daniels) who wants to assist in the case, dodge cops Paul Rodriguez and Dylan Walsh and convince doctor Anjelica Huston that he owes De Jesus his time and help. "Blood Work" does do well for the majority of its running time, but the punchline comes way too fast and the finale is unsatisfying to say the least. Eastwood is pretty good as usual and Daniels is excellent in a comical supporting turn. Everyone else though ends up struggling to keep their intensity up as the production progresses. The "Hardy Boys" routine and the unnecessary blossoming romance between Eastwood and De Jesus make "Blood Work" play more like a television movie of the week than a theatrical release. With all this said, "Blood Work" does do enough good things to keep the audience watching and intrigued---most of the time anyway. 4 stars out of 5.
Disappointing
paulmcmeekin7414 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Being a fan of Michael Connelly (i'm working my way through his books) I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, especially i'd just finished reading the novel. As others have said, the first half stuck pretty much to what was in the book but there were a lot of unnecessary changes made, biggest and worst of all was changing the role of the killer. For those who haven't read the book, the killer, Buddy No one should have been the computer guy who witnessed the Cordell murder at the ATM, the boat bum should've been a good guy!) The other big disappointment was the total lack of atmosphere in this movie, mainly due to the fact that there was a virtually non existent score! The editing was quite poor too, sometimes making the film seemingly drag along, especially in the action scenes.
Altogether a generally poor effort. It's hard to believe this came from the same director as Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby.
Altogether a generally poor effort. It's hard to believe this came from the same director as Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby.
GOOD STORY - BUT CLINT IS GETTING OLD
iohefy-26 August 2002
This was a good story, and the acting was OK, but I think that Clint Eastwood is getting a little old for this type of story. He did play a FBI detailer who was recovering from a heart transplant, and he did fit the part as he looked OLD and haggard. It was an entertaining two hours, and worth seeing. Think it is time for Clint to hang up his gun and ride off into the sunset.
CHEER! - (7 stars out of 10)
BJG-Reviews11 February 2020
The stage curtains open ...
The film opens with Terry McCaleb (Clint Eastwood), an FBI profiler, hot on the case of a serial killer known as the "code killer" who is bent of playing the ever popular cat and mouse game - the "try and catch me if you can" back and forth game. It's easy to see from the get-go, that these two have a bit of history behind them and when McCaleb nearly catches his man, he suffers a near fatal heart attack which forces him into retirement, which he spends restoring his boat.
A couple of years later, he is the recipient of a heart transplant and has a new lease on life. However, when he is approached by the sister of a murder victim and apparent donor that supplied McCaleb with his new heart, he feels compelled to solve his donor's murder which takes things a little too close to home. The code killer once more has emerged and the game is afoot again. Against the wishes of his doctor and the police department, he puts everything at risk to discover the identity of this ruthless killer once and for all.
Already an established name in Hollywood, fans of Clint Eastwood already had a good feeling for what to expect going in. The story is intelligent, as implausible as it is, with good development and solid acting. It has that all too familiar Eastwood laid back style with pacing that is in no hurry to go anywhere. The characters are flushed out well and the plot keeps you watching to find out the who's and the why's behind the crimes.
I enjoyed this one. It isn't one of Eastwood's best films, and the ending does leave a little to be desired, but I liked the story. I felt the premise was pretty original and carried along decently. This is certainly worth a watch, worth the time and effort. Maybe, it's not a keeper, but if you are into this sort of thing and are an Eastwood fan, it's one to have in your own collection. I give this outing a strong 7 stars out of 10.
The film opens with Terry McCaleb (Clint Eastwood), an FBI profiler, hot on the case of a serial killer known as the "code killer" who is bent of playing the ever popular cat and mouse game - the "try and catch me if you can" back and forth game. It's easy to see from the get-go, that these two have a bit of history behind them and when McCaleb nearly catches his man, he suffers a near fatal heart attack which forces him into retirement, which he spends restoring his boat.
A couple of years later, he is the recipient of a heart transplant and has a new lease on life. However, when he is approached by the sister of a murder victim and apparent donor that supplied McCaleb with his new heart, he feels compelled to solve his donor's murder which takes things a little too close to home. The code killer once more has emerged and the game is afoot again. Against the wishes of his doctor and the police department, he puts everything at risk to discover the identity of this ruthless killer once and for all.
Already an established name in Hollywood, fans of Clint Eastwood already had a good feeling for what to expect going in. The story is intelligent, as implausible as it is, with good development and solid acting. It has that all too familiar Eastwood laid back style with pacing that is in no hurry to go anywhere. The characters are flushed out well and the plot keeps you watching to find out the who's and the why's behind the crimes.
I enjoyed this one. It isn't one of Eastwood's best films, and the ending does leave a little to be desired, but I liked the story. I felt the premise was pretty original and carried along decently. This is certainly worth a watch, worth the time and effort. Maybe, it's not a keeper, but if you are into this sort of thing and are an Eastwood fan, it's one to have in your own collection. I give this outing a strong 7 stars out of 10.
Good murder mistery
ivanmessimilos16 April 2022
A very good Eastwood film although at times it seems like the film is on autopilot. The character simply knows how to direct and act, but it's as if we've already seen something similar. A big plus here goes the mystery surrounding the serial killer as he tries to solve the case, and there's also a twist at the end of the film, albeit only at first glance. The rest is more or less solid and ok. A recommendation for anyone who loves the crime mystery. Of course and Eastwood too.
Pedestrian murder mystery from Clint Eastwood.
senortuffy8 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I finally got around to watching a tape of this film, and I kinda liked it despite the bad reviews it got. The story is a bit weak - the movie title gives away too much of the plot, and I figured out the Jeff Daniels angle pretty early on, but it was still entertaining.
I think the film would have been better with a few casting changes. Jeff Daniels just doesn't make it as a psycho killer, and the gun battle at the end of the film seemed a bit ludicrous and unnecessary. Also, I think the police lieutenant, played by Tina Lifford, would have worked better as Clint's love interest. There was more chemistry between those two than with the dead girl's sister. Also, there was too much of Paul Rodriguez in the flick - his bantering with Clint was overdone.
Pedestrian, but still enjoyable.
I think the film would have been better with a few casting changes. Jeff Daniels just doesn't make it as a psycho killer, and the gun battle at the end of the film seemed a bit ludicrous and unnecessary. Also, I think the police lieutenant, played by Tina Lifford, would have worked better as Clint's love interest. There was more chemistry between those two than with the dead girl's sister. Also, there was too much of Paul Rodriguez in the flick - his bantering with Clint was overdone.
Pedestrian, but still enjoyable.
Entertaining Mystery
gavin694222 August 2017
Still recovering from a heart transplant, a retired FBI profiler (Clint Eastwood) returns to service when his own blood analysis offers clues to the identity of a serial killer.
While this is not one of Eastwood's best films in the critical sense, it is a very fun and enjoyable movie just the same. We are given a murder, some clues and follow the trail along with Eastwood. We get red herrings, and you never really know what will happen until it happens.
Jeff Daniels is interesting in the supporting role. He seems under0used, but does shine in a few key scenes. Are their plot holes? Yes. Do some characters act in a nonsense manner? Absolutely. But it still makes for a fun film.
While this is not one of Eastwood's best films in the critical sense, it is a very fun and enjoyable movie just the same. We are given a murder, some clues and follow the trail along with Eastwood. We get red herrings, and you never really know what will happen until it happens.
Jeff Daniels is interesting in the supporting role. He seems under0used, but does shine in a few key scenes. Are their plot holes? Yes. Do some characters act in a nonsense manner? Absolutely. But it still makes for a fun film.
See it before
Bry-22 January 2003
There's really nothing new in this cop drama. Eastwood plays his patented Tough Cop, mellowed by age and a brand new heart, and does everything you expect him to, including (but not limited to) defying his doctor's advice; chasing a suspect then shooting him while suffering a heart attack, but without once shouting, "Stop in the name of the law," or whatever is required, even by the LAPD; having the female lead fall for him, despite an age difference Anna Nicole Smith could relate to; solving the case despite all the obstacles the authorities can throw at him.
This is not a bad movie, it's just not a particularly good one. If you're hoping for another Unforgiven, or even a Dirty Harry, look elsewhere.
But even Clint can't bat 1.000.
This is not a bad movie, it's just not a particularly good one. If you're hoping for another Unforgiven, or even a Dirty Harry, look elsewhere.
But even Clint can't bat 1.000.
NEW HEART; NEW BABE; NEW GUN; SAME CLINT - Fun movie.
Tokugawa12 August 2002
One wonders how sick and old Clint's movie persona will have to become before he finally becomes unable to bed the young babe and shoot it out with the bad guy. Well, not yet, although his mortality is surely front and center in "Blood Work".
As a former FBI profiler, he suffered a heart attack while chasing a serial murder suspect; after a long wait due to his rare blood type he finally got a heart transplant - the catch is he now has the heart of the woman whom that serial killer may have murdered specifically so that McCabe could get the heart. The killer wanted McCabe active as he enjoyed the challenge and the chase. Then, the sister of the murdered woman seeks McCabe's help, and tells him whose heart he has, thus bringing him out of retirement and into the hunt despite his doctor's orders.
All the pieces of the plot fit together rather well, except for the plot hole listed below that to me ruled out a major character as a potential suspect.
Paul Rodriguez is both ridiculous and obnoxious as an Hispanic detective with a bad attitude. I suppose he was there for comic relief, but I never found him funny, not in the film nor anywhere else. Jeff Daniels dusts off his "Dumb and Dumber" schtick as the marina neighbor. Tina Lifford is very effective as a helpful Sherriff's deputy, and so is Wanda De Jesus as the rather angry sister who jumps Clint's bones despite the huge transplant scar - and her own sister's heart beating underneath (or was that a turn-on?).
It is all rather familiar, and basically the same "old" Clint, but nonetheless a very enjoyable movie and a well-written story. For those who say "when will we see a different Clint?", well, we already have in a number of more sensitive films.
PLOT HOLE:
At the ATM early in the film he unknowingly confronts the actual killer - wearing a woman's crucifix earring in his right ear. Unfortunately, there is a close-up of that same ear subsequently (before we know who the killer is), and it is NOT a pierced ear; thus, I ruled him OUT as a suspect. He could not have worn that earring, and don't tell me he used Crazy Glue. This is a plot hole.
As a former FBI profiler, he suffered a heart attack while chasing a serial murder suspect; after a long wait due to his rare blood type he finally got a heart transplant - the catch is he now has the heart of the woman whom that serial killer may have murdered specifically so that McCabe could get the heart. The killer wanted McCabe active as he enjoyed the challenge and the chase. Then, the sister of the murdered woman seeks McCabe's help, and tells him whose heart he has, thus bringing him out of retirement and into the hunt despite his doctor's orders.
All the pieces of the plot fit together rather well, except for the plot hole listed below that to me ruled out a major character as a potential suspect.
Paul Rodriguez is both ridiculous and obnoxious as an Hispanic detective with a bad attitude. I suppose he was there for comic relief, but I never found him funny, not in the film nor anywhere else. Jeff Daniels dusts off his "Dumb and Dumber" schtick as the marina neighbor. Tina Lifford is very effective as a helpful Sherriff's deputy, and so is Wanda De Jesus as the rather angry sister who jumps Clint's bones despite the huge transplant scar - and her own sister's heart beating underneath (or was that a turn-on?).
It is all rather familiar, and basically the same "old" Clint, but nonetheless a very enjoyable movie and a well-written story. For those who say "when will we see a different Clint?", well, we already have in a number of more sensitive films.
PLOT HOLE:
At the ATM early in the film he unknowingly confronts the actual killer - wearing a woman's crucifix earring in his right ear. Unfortunately, there is a close-up of that same ear subsequently (before we know who the killer is), and it is NOT a pierced ear; thus, I ruled him OUT as a suspect. He could not have worn that earring, and don't tell me he used Crazy Glue. This is a plot hole.
A solid murder mystery
Tweekums28 October 2020
As this film opens we see elderly FBI profiler Terry McCaleb giving chase to a man he believes to be a serial killer known as the 'Code Murderer'. He collapses with a heart attack but still manages to put a bullet in the fleeing man. Two years later and he is retired and recovering from a heart transplant. He is approached by a woman who tells him that his heart came from her murdered sister... she wants him to find the man who killed her. McCaleb agrees to make some inquiries. The police believe she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when a convenience store was robbed; after looking at the evidence he isn't so sure and thinks her murder may be linked to another murder. As his condition means he can't drive he gets his neighbour, Buddy, to drive him to the various people he needs to question. His inquiry soon irritates the officers who'd investigated the case for the LAPD, a friend who works for LA County Police, is more helpful.
This Clint Eastwood film may not be up there with 'Dirty Harry' it is at least as good as the later instalments in that series of films. One might think Eastwood is far too old to be playing the lead investigator in a mystery but having the character recovering from a heart transplant justifies a slower pace... it also serves perfectly to motivate McCaleb to take this particular case. The story plays out well with various suspects coming into view before the killer's identity is revealed. The clues are there for the viewer to identify the killer before it is revealed but they aren't too obvious. The cast does a fine job with Clint Eastwood being solid as McCaleb and Jeff Daniels is fun as Buddy; there are also notable performances from Wanda De Jesús, Tina Lifford and Anjelica Huston. There are some flaws, things get a bit messy towards the end as McCaleb confronts the killer in a somewhat silly finale... this wasn't enough to spoil my enjoyment of the film though. I'd recommend it to fans of the genre.
This Clint Eastwood film may not be up there with 'Dirty Harry' it is at least as good as the later instalments in that series of films. One might think Eastwood is far too old to be playing the lead investigator in a mystery but having the character recovering from a heart transplant justifies a slower pace... it also serves perfectly to motivate McCaleb to take this particular case. The story plays out well with various suspects coming into view before the killer's identity is revealed. The clues are there for the viewer to identify the killer before it is revealed but they aren't too obvious. The cast does a fine job with Clint Eastwood being solid as McCaleb and Jeff Daniels is fun as Buddy; there are also notable performances from Wanda De Jesús, Tina Lifford and Anjelica Huston. There are some flaws, things get a bit messy towards the end as McCaleb confronts the killer in a somewhat silly finale... this wasn't enough to spoil my enjoyment of the film though. I'd recommend it to fans of the genre.
The Worst Clint Eastwood Movie Ever Made!
Tiger_Mark6 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Let me be the first to say that I am a huge Clint Eastwood fan. He is the biggest icon in Hollywood, a true legend. That is why it pained me so to see this truly lousy film. I mean, everything in this film is bad. Be it the overacting by Paul Rodriguez, the underacting by Clint Eastwood, the lame story, the endless cliches, etc..
**Spoilers**
Clint Eastwood plays a former FBI profiler that had to retire when he had a heart attack on the job. When he had his attack, he was in search of an unknown serial killer. Two years later, the sister of the woman whose heart he received in a transplant, contacts him. It seems that here sister was killed by the same killer that Clint was looking for. He feels obligated to find the killer, because of the heart. Well, Jeff Daniels is the co-star of this film. The only thing is that he rarely appears in the first half of the film. Hmmm, a major star, that is co-starring in this film has like no screen time in the first half of the film? Oh, I did mention that the killer is unknown? Hey, do you suppose that Jeff Daniels might be that unknown killer? Nah, that would be way too obvious! Exactly. Clint, what happened? Oh yeah, there is a tacked on love scene that is truly hilarious. * out of **** and that is being kind.
**Spoilers**
Clint Eastwood plays a former FBI profiler that had to retire when he had a heart attack on the job. When he had his attack, he was in search of an unknown serial killer. Two years later, the sister of the woman whose heart he received in a transplant, contacts him. It seems that here sister was killed by the same killer that Clint was looking for. He feels obligated to find the killer, because of the heart. Well, Jeff Daniels is the co-star of this film. The only thing is that he rarely appears in the first half of the film. Hmmm, a major star, that is co-starring in this film has like no screen time in the first half of the film? Oh, I did mention that the killer is unknown? Hey, do you suppose that Jeff Daniels might be that unknown killer? Nah, that would be way too obvious! Exactly. Clint, what happened? Oh yeah, there is a tacked on love scene that is truly hilarious. * out of **** and that is being kind.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
