User Score
Universal acclaim- based on 54 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 47 out of 54
-
Mixed: 4 out of 54
-
Negative: 3 out of 54
Review this album
-
BloodflowersYour Score0 out of 10User ScoreUniversal acclaim- based on 54 Ratings
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- By date
- Most helpful
-
SteveH.Sep 8, 2002This is the worst album they have put out. It is slow and lacks enthuisiasm. I got the feeling the band needed to put this album out to make money at the expense (no pun) of creativity.
-
-
[Anonymous]Jul 27, 2007fuck the Cure! They've lost it! Robert Smith looks like the goth Elvis and like Elvis circa the mid 70s he's not even a shadow of what he used to be. Not that they were all that great to begin with. If it weren't for the Scottish and the shoegazers the 80s would have been disasterious.
-
Awards & Rankings
-
Fans who have waited patiently for a proper follow-up to 1989's acclaimed Disintegration should be pleased, if not necessarily bowled over by Bloodflowers, a deeply felt album with a similarly downcast mood.
-
PunctureSmith focuses on his own artistic/existential questions to the exclusion of all else, including the record's production, which is completely monotonous, and its pace, which falls somewhere between a plod and a trudge. [#46, p.47]
-
Smith is incapable of writing five bad songs in a row; even hopeless records (1992's Wish) sport some saving grace ("Friday I'm in Love"). But he can write four bad songs in a row, and Cure albums tend to leak filler like an attic spilling insulation. The latest, Bloodflowers, is half dismissible droning, an unforgivable ratio considering it's only nine tracks long.