Verivelka

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. (01.07.2003)

A very unnecessary crime film in which a seventy-year-old Clint Eastwood searches with bulldog determination for an easily predictable killer and even manages to acquire a partner many decades younger. The lack of plausibility is balanced by the unrelenting tempo, but given the genre everything is way too predictable and visually surprisingly sterile. (31.07.2005)

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... (20.05.2024)

Another film where the director and the lead actor share the same name. And yes, it's Eastwood. I had wanted to see Blood Work for a long time because a script by Brian Helgeland means something nowadays, and the story seemed interesting to me as well. But don’t make the same mistake I did by thinking it would be a somewhat mysterious film. I expect something different from that genre. Eastwood didn’t disappoint in either the director’s chair or in his role as the lead actor. A few of his lines are worth a laugh. Paul Rodriguez as the snarky detective absolutely shone—it was fascinating to watch the verbal sparring between him and Eastwood. On paper, the story seems quite strong and unshakable, but in reality, it’s not as great. Even so, the plot was watchable, with one brilliant twist (yes, the revelation of Jeff Daniels' character’s true identity). I could have done without Eastwood’s romantic subplot, as it didn’t fit the film at all. I'm also puzzled as to where the 50 million dollars of the budget went because there isn’t much action. It’s a mystery to me. Because of Eastwood and a few good moments, it’s worth watching, and you won’t need to worry about the overall quality. I give it 67%. (07.08.2017)

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. (25.09.2008)