|
|
|
Dan Heller's Movie Review of "Blood Work" |
|
(There are 8 images on this page.)
|
|
|
Clint Eastwood's long career has taken him into various dramatic
landscapes, but the one he returns to most is the cop-crime thriller
genre. In fact, if you'd guessed the "western", you wouldn't be that far
off, since both themes are built upon a foundation that's very reminiscent
of film noire, a cinematic technique found in most of Eastwood movies. His
latest work, "Blood Work," is his 23rd as a director and 44th as star,
also repeats a trend he is consistent about: portraying characters that
are more like him as he is, not just as he wants to be as an actor. When
Eastwood returned to the Western with Unforgiven in 1992, he portrayed an
over-the-hill gunfighter coaxed to return, despite his better judgment,
but finds that he inadvertently revels in it. The same element exists
in "Blood Work", where he plays Terry McCaleb, an FBI detective who is
forced to retire after collapsing from a heart attack while pursuing a
serial killer, but is later coaxed into returning to investigative work
to solve one more crime.
In fact, that is basically the plot. Two years after his heart attack
and subsequent retirement, he gets a heart transplant from a donor who
happened to be the victim of an apparent store robbery. When the victim's
sister points out that his new heart is her sister's, she convinces him
that he owes it to her to help solve her unsolved murder, of which he was
the beneficiary. It isn't long before he begins to piece together subtle
clues, and before he knows it, he's reinvigorated by the chase again, yet
torn about the realization that it's his presence that's the cause of it.
What makes "Blood Work" so interesting is the wit and intelligence of
the film overall. In addition, the coupling of Eastwood's ability to
infuse his own age and fragility in his character, lends to the film's
sense of authenticity. The plot is intriguing, puzzling, always moving
forward, and suspenseful, and the process of solving puzzle is equally
satisfying. I really enjoyed myself from beginning to end, even though I
found it necessary to yell (to myself, but directed at a stupid actor),
"NO! Don't do that!" It's almost always necessary to do that during a
suspense thriller, because we, the audience, are always smarter than
the characters.
My only criticism of the film is the simplistic motivations of the
villain. Sure, a serial killer is psychotic, and one don't necessarily
have to be motivated by world events or other serious matters to push
him over the edge, but it helps intensify the suspense and glory of
the catch when the villain has some external motivation other than
simple personal thrills. Background, history, a churning event in his
past that triggered his psychotic behavior - anything would help. But,
to just have a killer to that kills "to feel connected" isn't exactly
the most interesting motivation. In this case, it doesn't really hurt
the film that much, but it would have helped to develop the villain a
tad more than presenting him so two-dimensionally.
|
|
|
