Let's make one thing clear before we proceed: I, in no way, claim to be a book critic nor do I present an objective perspective. This is not a book review, this is what I think of Michael Connelly's book.
Having gotten that out of the way, let us now give credit where credit is due. In about thirty or so pages, Connelly managed to hook me into reading his book. It sets off with a few nice scenes and intriguing exchanges between McCaleb and Graciela Rivers that entice the reader's intellect and lure him into reading the next few pages, and those pages con the reader into the reading the following ones until you've finished the book (or at least came close to its end). Not many authors can do that.
In essence, it's a nice little thriller you'd read your kid before he goes to sleep. Ok, it's not that nice, but still, it doesn't exactly shatter your world either. It's nice, yeah "nice" is just about the right word for it. It, reasonably, keeps you on your toes, ie you can still eat and sleep without obsessively rushing to the book to read a few pages, and manages to provide you with a few "aha" moments. But does it fill the "one of Michael Connelly's best books" shoes? I believe not, because I don't consider Michael Connelly as an average writer.
You have surely noticed that what you just read is some kind of PG13 mix of compliments and blows to Bloodwork. Well, from now on, it's full on war.
Start reading the book, you're introduced to McCaleb. Ok, fine. Then comes Graciela Rivers. Hmm. First off, the godforsaken name... Graciela Rivers? Seriously? Why didn't Connelly go all the way and give her a Phoenix's name (You know Joaquin Phoenix? His siblings are called Rain, River, Liberty and Summer). Then he talks about how she is dressed lightly, as if she is there to seduce McCaleb. How, on god's green earth, does a woman who just lost her sister and is seeking help to find the killer, dress like a woman on vacation (for lack of a better word, if you know what I mean)? Do you see where I'm going? Either she is sad because her sister died, and then she'd look normal or perhaps awful, or she isn't, which means she'd dress well and not go to McCaleb's boat. Yet, as Connelly expects us to believe, she is sad and well dressed to lure Terry into taking the job. I think Connelly's trying to lure us into reading his book. You know, sex sells. Oh and the Mikhail Bolotov lead? What was that for? To spice up some otherwise dull novel unfortunately.
Let's talk now about the unfolding of the story. McCaleb successfully joins the puzzle pieces and finds out that the killer is targeting potential organ donors who could save McCaleb's life. Then, with some crafty witchcraft he manages to find out it's James Noone, aka the code killer, the code that doesn't have a 1, hence the name "No one". I mean come on, am I to believe that the killer has been hiding in plain sight all along? This is way too unrealistic for my liking. Then, adding insult to injury, the code killer sends McCaleb messages on computer screens and tells him, to put it simply, "I gave you life, so you're mine now". Well, first of all, given that the novel was released in 1998, this screams "I'm gonna cram some computers into this, kids'll dig it"; I believe that computers had no role to play in the storyline and were just put in for some bizarre reason. Secondly, Connelly expects us to believe that the killer is so sick and twisted that instead of killing McCaleb, he saved him. Man, you lost all credibility.
What does Clint Eastwood's "Bloodwork" film have to do with all of this? Keep in mind that it was a commercial flop: it cost 50 million dollars and grossed 26 million. Not exactly spectacular, and it's easy to see why: the book's a flop, Eastwood is chiefly an actor,and he failed miserably trying to act in and direct this film. The camera angles were simply bad, the effects, particularly McCaleb's dream, are amateur at best and the music too dull. Yet, all in all, it managed a 6.3/10 on IMDB, which is good (bad movies hover around the 5/10 mark), and that's because Eastwood radically changed the plot to make it more realistic so it suits the silver screen: the code killer is no longer James Noone, some random killer, but McCaleb's neighbor Buddy. Some characters were changed for the movie, Graciela was a waitress in the movie, others were axed and a few sequences from the book did not make it onto the silver screen, notably the all important hypnosis session since the man being hypnotized did not exist in the movie.
I'll quote a few IMDB reviews of the film so we can all see what the average viewer thought about it:
"Clint Eastwood's direction sadly loses its way late in this otherwise
suspenseful drama [...].
"Blood Work" does do well for the majority of its running time, but the
punchline comes way too fast and the finale is unsatisfying to say the
least. Eastwood is pretty good as usual and Daniels is excellent in a
comical supporting turn. Everyone else though ends up struggling to keep
their intensity up as the production progresses. The "Hardy Boys" routine
and the unnecessary blossoming romance between Eastwood and De Jesus make
"Blood Work" play more like a television movie of the week than a theatrical
release. With all this said, "Blood Work" does do enough good things to keep
the audience watching and intrigued---most of the time anyway. 4 stars out
of 5." - tfrizzell
"[...]This is not a bad movie, it's just not a particularly good one. If you're
hoping for another Unforgiven, or even a Dirty Harry, look elsewhere.
But even Clint can't bat 1.000." - Bryce Rumbles
No comments:
Post a Comment