Changing Lanes (2002)

Please don't spend money on this.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Here's a totally offbeat film, about as non-mainstream as you could expect despite the presence of two A-listers in the dual leading roles. It's a character study of motivation and the forces which drive sane people to commit insane and unpleasant acts. It helps greatly that the leads are played with such skill and charisma as actors Samuel L. Jackson and Ben Affleck can muster. Jackson is as intense as ever, but also unusually heart-warming in the emotional moments; Affleck puts in his best performance to date here as the vain but weak young lawyer, and the result is highly effective. The scenes in which the leads share screen time are very effective.The story is slow-paced but this works in the film's favour, building up a realistic picture of life in New York and carefully developing the characters along the way. There are many twists and surprises in the cat-and-mouse game played out between the two men, and it's never quite possible to predict the outcome for this is an edgy, sometimes unsettling movie. In the end things do get a bit preachy and syrupy, but this doesn't matter, because the film's message is a strong one and the dialogue is not spoon-fed to the audience, a failing of so many modern films. Instead this is a film that doesn't underestimate the viewer, that is worth a look thanks to being so unconventional and intelligently-written and made.

Anyone with knowledge of courts and the law will find the initial plot device absurd. If the original power of appointment was such an important and irreplaceable document, the firm partners should have had Atty. Gavin Banek go to court to file the document escorted with security guards. More realistically, they would have filed a motion with a certified copy of the document, and later file the original if necessary. That Gavin, knowing the document was irreplaceable nonetheless brings it out of the car to be inadvertently dropped is also quite silly. The other nonsense is that Gavin had to be on time at the hearing, or else, even after suffering the traffic accident. Having Gavin do other things on such a precarious day, like interview job candidates, makes no sense. That Gavin is one of the partners son-in-law further piles on the absurdity.Meanwhile, Doyle Gibson, while no lawyer, does some very stupid things of his own, like not cashing on the opportunity and picking up a computer in a bank and throwing it down to the floor (with no consequences). Later Gavin very tensely confronts the same officer, who seemingly not having learned his lesson, continues to behave like a jerk. I was expecting Gavin to throw down to the floor his newly installed computer too.Then we have Master Hacker, who can with just a name enter a man's banking and credit accounts and delete them all and declare him bankrupt, and later undo all these things, all in just minutes. He is a useful, convenient but totally unreal device. Why use him instead of hiring some goons to force Doyle to return the document, well, I guess the reason was that Gavin did not know any goons, only Master Hacker.Gavin gets panicky and activates the sprinklers in the office in order to access a file. Water flows in buckets for minutes while people are forced to evacuate and firemen rush in. Gavin returns later in the evening and the office seems OK, no signs of the deluge. Hell, even one of the interview boys is still around.Why then the 5 stars you may ask? The film seemed good intended. And contrary to others, I liked the denouement. A lot.

The story of what happens one day in New York when a young lawyer (Ben Affleck) and a businessman (Sam Jackson) share a small automobile accident on F.D.R. Drive and their mutual road rage escalates into a feud.What I find interesting is that comments on this film tend to be regarding which side to take, with some saying Jackson is "vile" or Affleck is "selfish". And, really, that is part of the beauty of this movie -- we naturally want to pick a side, like one guy and dislike another. But they are both flawed people.Affleck is selfish, cheats on his wife, cuts off a guy's credit, flees an accident... his only redeeming quality is he is the only non-corrupt member of a law firm, though that hardly makes up for his failings. Jackson has a terrible temper, breaks things, has little self-control and is an alcoholic. Sure, he wants to reunite with his kids, which is noble, but maybe he should not be able to. Even if he had received Affleck's insurance card, he still would have been late for court...

"Sometimes God likes to put two guys in a paper bag and just let 'em rip." - Gavin Banek "Systems, not people, make society happen." - Michael King Roger Michell directs "Changing Lanes". The plot? Samuel L. Jackson plays Doyle Gipson, an African American insurance salesman who's struggling with a divorce, AA meetings, financial problems and much stress. His car collides with Gavin Banek, played by Ben Affleck, who works for a law firm. Gipson is a man of integrity. A man who wants to do right by everyone. Banek, in contrast, is a wealthy shark routinely asked to do morally questionable deeds for his company. The duo's collision thus results in a sort of heated, class conflict. Unfolding over 24 hours, we watch as the couple lock horns, engage in battle, and attempt to ruin each other's lives.Despite some resemblance to "Falling Down", "Changing Lanes" is a refreshingly old fashioned film, feeling like some noir potboiler or race-relations thriller from the 1950s, or perhaps even something Stanley Kramer (vomit) may have directed. It touches upon white entitlement, the psychic scars of disrespect, the dignity and depravity of human beings, and the importance of responsibility and responsible individual actions, but is smart enough to wrap this all up in thriller dynamics. Like most big studio films concerned with the nature of morality (our heroes cycle through temptation, redemption, anger, chaos and reflection), however, things are kept strictly on the level of personal, individual ethics. The systemic issues which make Gipson and Banek's lessons void and unworkable, are ignored.Michell would direct the truly offencive "Morning Glory" some years later.7.9/10 – Worth one viewing.