Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Blood Work
User Score
5.1 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 31 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 31
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 31
  3. Negative: 13 out of 31

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. MichaelF.
    Aug 10, 2002
    0
    Imagine, ladies and gentlemen, imagine a great premise for a movie based upon a great novel, that ends up being a piece of sh... Eastwood, who is WAY too old, is just a HORRIBLE director, yeah UNFORGIVEN is great, but aside from its HORRIBLE screenplay, this movie looks just flat-out bad and dull. If Eastwood is "such a good director," than why couldn't he squeeze out a single decent performance from anyone aside from Angelica Huston and Jeff Daniels, who are already two excellent actors to begin with. On top of not generating a good performance, he made a sh.tty looking movie, now when I say "sh.tty" I don't mean TRAFFIC or BREAKING THE WAVES or DANCER IN THE DARK, those movies are beautifully gritty, this movie looks about as dull as SUNSHINE STATE. This film is also INCREDIBLY boring and not that interesting after a while. The STUPID STUPID STUPID twist is NOT from the novel but instead thrown in thier from way left field, such a ridiculous twist. It is just cliche, horribly filmed, even worse pacing, the main characters deliver some poor to horrendous performances. The opening "chase scene" is so ridiculous, Clint after some young guy, it's just laughable how slow the two are, don't worry, the film is way down hill from there. One of the worst films of the year, maybe 2. … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. DamianB
    Nov 6, 2003
    0
    This is seriously one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Seriously. I love Clint Eastwood, but the plot is so unbelievably stupid and predictable. The script and dialogue is so poor and the big name actors hold their own, but the others are horrible (personally, I thought the woman detective was good considering the horrible lines she was forced to read). But, the chase scenes was like watching the Golden Girls race to the bathroom and I was waiting for Clint Eastwood to fall over and say "I've fallen and I can't get up." Whoever wrote this script should never be allowed to work in the movie business again.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. ChadS.
    Aug 19, 2002
    7
    Harry Callahan would never carry around a cell-phone and neither does Terry McCaleb. When Clint Eastwood is at the pay-phone, it's 1972 all over again, and for awhile, we're not wondering how a septuagenarian can stay within decent proximity of a fleeing criminal. Eastwood isn't afraid to flaunt his age. In one instance, there's a clue that McCaleb initially overlooks that could break the case wide-open, and we wonder if it's a plot contrivance or diminishing detective skills as a result of advanced age. For me, it's the deciding factor if "Blood Work" is a good movie, a movie somewhat hampered by a weak performance from the romantic interest. But Eastwood is compelling as a detective on his last legs, and the slickless style in which he executes Brian Helgeland's screenplay is refreshingly old school just like that pay-phone. As a director and actor, Eastwood's blood still works, although not with the kind of circulation we're accustomed to.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. DickeyS.
    Aug 20, 2002
    1
    This movie was as entertaining as watching paint dry. If you can't figure out "who dun it" with in the first 20 minutes of the film, you must have been in special classes as a child. Watching Eastwood huff and puff his way across each scene is just embarassing. This movie has been made (and made better) dozens of times under different titles. There is absolutely no imagination behind the plot. The only thing you will be left with after seeing this movie is how you (regular joe off of the street) figured out who, what, where, and why two hours ahead of Clint Eastwood (former FBI profiler.....supposedly). … Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. RyanM.
    Jan 2, 2003
    1
    Forget as entertaining as watching paint dry, this thing's in a whole other league. This is like watching the paint, after it dries.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. Robert
    Feb 23, 2003
    7
    Not awesome, but definitely a good, watchable movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. AwefulS.
    Jan 7, 2004
    0
    Unoriginal and uninteresting.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. Hi.I'mGilbertMulroneycakesAndI'llBeYourW
    Dec 31, 2002
    2
    Tell-tale sign 1: it's only just this second come out in the cinema in this country (Britain, that is)...and it's already out on video in the America. Oh dear. Tell-tale sign sign 2: it's ChristmasNew Year this second...making it easier to bury the film in the theatres. Oh dear. Tell-tale sign 3: it has Clinton of the Eastwood as a romantic lead at the age of about 97. A case of the Woody Allens, I feel. Oh dear. And Clint (Actually a very good director, viz Unforgiven, Madison County and, I believe, Play Misty For Me, though I could be wrong, and if I am, I'm sure Ed the Great will correct me about...now) doesn't even do a good job behind the camera either. Not a very good film? No, not really.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. HarryH.
    Aug 14, 2002
    1
    No need repeating Michael F's review as he is on the money. Don't waste your time seeing this drek. Clint, if you still want to act you need to accept a different role.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. PaulaW.
    Aug 17, 2002
    7
    Call me crazy: I kind of enjoyed this movie. It wasn't the tightest production ever, but I'd rather an action film be a little slack than assault me every .5 seconds with explosions and jump cuts and manipulative sound. Without all that dreck, what remains is a sturdy plot filled out by great acting by Eastwood, Anjelica Huston, Jeff Daniels et al., all in fine form. Eastwood is still a force to contend with, but he also shows a more caring side which lends itself perfectly to the premise (finding out who killed the woman whose heart was transplanted to him): this time, it really IS personal. The dialogue needed a little help, but it had its moments - since when do action movie screenplays win big awards anyway? And the final showdown was, frankly, ridiculous. But these are forgivable flaws in a grown-up thriller that makes you miss the days before CGI mucked everything up.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. HarveyV.
    Aug 22, 2002
    4
    Boring. It's time to retire as an actor, Clint.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. RobertH.
    Aug 27, 2002
    0
    Somehow I must have forgot my Algebra lesson? Movies released in Aug. + Bloodwork = 0. Simply awful!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. LarryS.
    Aug 29, 2002
    2
    predictable, cliche, and a suprisingly weak production from Clint Eastwood. Altough we've seen it all before, his character is the only saving grace.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. PatC.
    Jan 12, 2004
    3
    I'll give it 3 points because ya gotta respect Eastwood's willingness to never quit trying new things. I leave this film to cinema science for an autopsy and further study. I'm not sure what it died of, but it's dead. Go ahead, make my casket.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. AJRozy
    Sep 5, 2004
    10
    Many twists and turns, great ending. A 10!!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. Sam
    Aug 25, 2005
    7
    I liked this movie, it just doesn't have the fantastic quality I came to expect from Clint Eastwood. Good acting, good twists, but there's something missing.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. [Anonymous]
    Sep 5, 2005
    8
    Your typical, decent thriller. Eastwood is at his usual greatness, but sometimes the thriller feels unengaging.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. LuisL.
    Apr 16, 2006
    10
    blood work is a masterpiece.clint eastwood, jeff daniels, angelica huston are suberb. blood work is one of the best films of all times.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
64 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 34
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 34
  3. Negative: 2 out of 34
  1. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    75
    Eastwood is now playing a man whose will is stronger than his body, and it's that tension -- between anger and frailty, steel and decay -- that powers the movie.
    Read full review
  2. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    67
    Certainly merits attention, although it shouldn't be mistaken for one of Eastwood's greatest works.
    Read full review
  3. New York Post
    Reviewed by: Lou Lumenick
    63
    It's an intriguing setup, filled with colorful characters, lots of humor and well-developed scenes.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »