This movie is an insult to viewers' intelligence. Almost every scene is so implausible and childish that I couldn't believe it was directed and produced by the great Clint Eastwood. At the beginning of the movie a policeman warns Eastwood, who is now a retired FBI agent, that making investigations without private detective license is a crime in California. However, Eastwood not only investigates without a proper license. He's also shooting at some car that just stands across the street. He also shoots at his neighbor. Later he gravely wounds him, and Eastwood's new girlfriend helps to submerge the wounded man into the water to finally kill him. This is apparent first degree murder, and the pair commits crime after crime while the viewer should believe that they will get no punishment for that. The most funny thing Eastwood-director pulled out with the mysterious code that the murderer leaves for him. Specialists tried to crack it. It was run on the FBI computer. Everybody came out empty handed. But a little child just looked at the code and immediately found the solution which later helped to apprehend the killer. What a pity! And this is the famous Clint Eastwood?

If it weren't for the obvious identity of the killer (I saw it coming a mile away), this was an otherwise well acted and well done Eastwood movie. The story takes its time to develop but does not drag. Seeing Eastwood play a character with a heart condition was an interesting change of pace for him. And Paul Rodriguez was completely annoying beyond words, but this is nothing new for him. It's too bad that the last 20 minutes falls into the typical Hollywood ending, otherwise this could have been a top notch crime drama.

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.

When I watched this when it first came out back in 2002, I remember thinking that it was pretty good. Upon further review of a more recent viewing, I am sad to report that "Blood Work" does not nearly hold up to the test of time.For a basic plot summary, the movie follows former police detective Terry McCaleb (Clint Eastwood), whose new heart happens to belong to a murder victim, a woman he vows (on the plea of her sister and orphaned son) to avenge by catching her killer.If you watched this movie in the theater back in 2002 without being spoiled by the "twist ending", you probably enjoyed it more than I will describe in this review. At that point in Eastwood's career, it was a nice vehicle in transferring him strictly to "old-timer" roles instead of always trying to "turn back the clock" on his age-appropriateness.In retrospect, though, "Blood Work" has two things firmly against it:1. When it is quickly followed by "Million Dollar Baby", "Gran Torino", and Eastwood's directorial efforts like "The Changeling" and "Flags of Our Fathers", "Blood Work" all of a sudden seems more towards the median line in terms of Clint's overall performance.2. A more fair criticism of the film, though, would be that it is little more than a hard-boiled cop drama that (judging by the reviews of others, as I have not read the book it is based on) includes none of the "heart" (pardon the pun) of its printed page predecessor. There are two many ridiculous logical jumps and character presentations (first and foremost being the ridiculous romance between old-man Clint and his heart-givers much younger sister) to make this flick seem "original" enough to give it screen credibility.Thus, like I said, the very first unspoiled viewing of Blood Work "in its time" might be a little bit better of an experience (though no classic by any means even then), but overall this is a film that will largely be lost to the sands of time (with only Eastwood's name keeping it relevant).