User Reviews (384)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • Now, I'm not going to slap this movie on my Top 10 list or say it deserves an Oscar nod, like many critics have exclaimed, but I will say it's something different. First of all, it's real. Not an artificial Hollywood shoot 'em up or disaster flick. This is a film about the human struggle. There's no violence or sex, and if it weren't for about 7 uses of the "f" word "Changing Lanes" could've easily earned a PG-13. So don't let the R-rating fool you.

    There are three main reasons why I checked out this movie: Samuel, L, Jackson. Needless to say, he's a terrific actor and worth seeing in whatever he does. He's one of my favorites, and he delivers another powerhouse performance, taking on a role somewhat different from his recent roles: he plays an average Joe. We're introduced to his character, Doyle Gibson, who's a very nice guy simply haunted by mistakes in his past, one being alcoholism, which led to a divorce. And now he's attending AA meetings and buying a house for his two kids, hoping he will attain custody of them. Ben Affleck is good and charismatic. I didn't sympathize as much with his character, but that doesn't make him an antagonist. Neither characters are saints, nor are they sinners. That's good, because it's never completely effective to include characters who are entirely sympathetic. They're both mature adults, but they resort to juvenile acts of revenge in hopes that they can undo what happened. Sydney Pollack is great, as Affleck's egotistical father-in-law, proving his talents in front of the camera are just as fine as his talents behind the camera. I wanted to see more of the beautiful Amanda Peet, but she only has approximately 7 minutes of screen time. So I'm guessing that topless scene I heard mentioned didn't make it to the final cut. Oh, well. William Hurt, who seems to do a movie every 5 years, unfortunately has a small, thankless role as an alcohol counselor.

    The script is well-written, and the film is a lot more character-driven than ones of recent years. I loved that scene in the bar where Sam Jackson sits in a lonely bar, listening in on two white guys badmouthing Tiger Woods. He lashes back with a terrific monologue, and later ends up punching them out. Some directors would've cut that scene out, overly concerned about the film's pacing, but I'm glad this time that wasn't the case. However, the ending seems a little fake. It's just too happy for its own good. But that's the only element of the movie I found forced.

    My score: 7 (out of 10)
  • This movie was surprisingly good, but fans of car chase sequences and the like will be extremely disappointed. The acting and directing is expertly carried out, with special praise to Ben Affleck as Gavin Banek. Changing Lanes actually explores more depth into the main characters, and how their lives will change, either for better or worse, rather than just dealing with pure and simple 'road rage'.

    Samuel L. Jackson was well appointed as Doyle Gipson, and portrays his part well. One character's next move to destroy the other makes compelling viewing, and we can actually feel some sympathy for them, as we see both their emotional and compassionate side.

    The story flows well as we are drawn into Banek and Gipson's desire to cause pain and hurt, not giving any thought to others who maybe affected by what they are doing. Changing Lanes is not a violent film as such, it simply explores the aspects of revenge in what could be a true-to-life measure. This is what makes it an entertaining and gripping movie that proved a winner for myself, and should do for many other film fans.
  • Spoilers.

    Changing Lanes is much more complex than the trailer leads you to believe. From the preview, you'd think it is an action fan's over-revved, simple-minded revenge thriller with lots of vehicular mayhem. Believe it or not, it does more peeling back of the layers of insulation of the affluent/powerful end of the social spectrum than any film I have seen lately. (--And not in the way the disappointingly too-pat-to-downright-absurd 'John Q' did, either.)

    It's a film noir, and one of the darkest at that, full of despair, cynicism and scathing revelations about human nature. It seems to say-- or really, and this is a major distinction, to be about characters some of whom believe-- that we all make deals of personal expedience with Morality, that no one escapes life formation uncompromised and therefore able to comment on or judge anyone else's choices or actions. It's the old amoral, nihilistic/relativistic universe routine, which says concepts of fairness, justice or morality are quaintly irrelevant, that stuff just keeps happening, always has and always will, que sera sera.

    My favorite scene, which was revolting and ugly and creepy as anything in any horror film you can name, is when Affleck sits down in a fine restaurant to discuss with his wife the morality of the situation he has been sucked into and is getting in deeper by the hour. He recognizes rightly that his game of oneupmanship, and win-at-any-cost has gotten insanely out of control. He is beginning to question it all, everything in his life. He comes to his wife for solace, direction, insight, a hint of moral rectitude, any help she can offer. She helps him, alright-- by saying she knows he does dishonest things (like having an affair with a woman at the office, which up until she springs that, he thought was his little secret) and that she could have had an honest husband, if that was all she wanted. --Why would she make a scene over an infidelity and risk interrupting the flow of her resources, anyway, she asks. He splits the dinner, dazed and even more desperate. In the next scene we witness him doing more of those very things he has just been having moral anguish over. (Maybe he can't recognize the feel of moral anguish at first.)

    The Affleck character has a tremendous amount at stake, courtesy a pretty nifty plot hook, that keeps him up to some very dirty tricks. Sure, he doesn't want to risk interrupting the flow of his resources, either. But I think it's clear that the real reason he keeps doing crummy things is because he is a man compulsively drawn to the rewards of a destructive mode of behavior. Others gamble or drink or eat too much. Affleck works the system, lying, cheating, and treating all people like garbage. That's his high, his inescapable need. He can't quit. (Late in the film, he agrees to hire an idealistic young intern because, he laughs uncontrollably to himself, he wants to see what the intern's optimism and altruism looks like after 5 years of hard weathering by his no-rules-in-life employer.) Affleck is sick, and while he finally recognizes that sickness, he resigns himself to keep doing the same thing because, as his boss tells himself, he is willing to believe he has done more good than harm at the end of the day. The Affleck character's motivations for being extra bad, in the episode of his life we glimpse here, are strong enough to keep Changing Lanes from being just another American psycho study; it's easy to believe we could turn Affleck, given a similar circumstance in our life.

    The ending is a somewhat forced positive one, but not nearly as much a sell out as is usually the case with a made-by-committee major commercial film. I give the whole enterprise 8.5 out of 10 stars.
  • There is a lot great about this movie. Plausible plot, strong acting, alpha on alpha everyday Joes (vs superheroes or thugs or spys). The movie mostly avoids stereotypes, arguably completely avoids them because these are well drawn characters. Great, believable psychological thriller.

    High real world stakes.

    Until the last ten d*** minutes when Afleck becomes essentially a super hero and fixes all the consequences for Jackson, despite how clear it was made throughout that most of these things could not be fixed.

    Such an intelligent story ruined by one of the most careless yet brazen Hollywood endings in history.

    I know *why* they make Hollywood endings, but I strongly suspect anyone that sat through this disturbing tale could handle a real ending. This ending is tantamount to all the dead people in Alien or one of the Hannibal Lecter movies all being AOK at the end.
  • 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...
  • Enjoyed the great acting of Ben Affleck,(Gavin Banek) along with an outstanding performance by Samuel L. Jackson,(Doyle Gipson) who are total strangers until they both have an accident on the FDR in New York City. Gavin Banek is a financial lawyer who works for his father-in-law who owns the firm and is being groomed for bigger and better things in this law firm. Doyle Gipson is recovering from substance abuse and is very happy about being able to purchase a new home and also the fact he will be able to go before a judge and show how great his rehabilitation is working out for him, so he can have the custody of his two children. This accident causes problems for both of these men and the entire story deals with how these two men are able to face some very difficult lessons to be learned by both of them. There is no romance just a very confused bunch of guys dealing with their problems in unbelievable ways and causing more problems than is necessary. John Hart, "Body Heat" is a sponsor for Doyle Gipson in his AA Group and does everything he can to make sure Doyle does not take a drink.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    While Changing Lanes won't probably make it to my personal top-something favorite movies list, it was nevertheless a solid film, sufficiently different from the Hollywood cliche majority of the genre to be remembered. The managed to keep my attention from waning, and the ethical questions it raised forced me to do a bit of thinking.

    I might not be a strict enough movie "critic", since I tend to forgive--overlook, even--a number of flaws, as long as they do not outweigh the good sides of a film. So yes, it does have a few rather unconvincing bits [***POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT***] (first and foremost, I can't see why go and bankrupt somebody after only one attempt at, uhm, reconciliation) [***END OF SPOILER***], but if you disregard them, suspending your disbelief for a while, you can really enjoy the movie. It grips you, even though the action doesn't rush at a breakneck speed; and thank goodness that it doesn't, because that is why the movie stands out from the crowd. (As for those IMDb posters who considered that boring: it wasn't. I'm really sorry for you guys, if you really need to be bombarded with adrenaline to enjoy a film.) Changing Lanes is "a personal-vendetta thriller with a difference": instead of a steady escalation of anger and violence, constantly augmented by the revengeful side of man's nature--as is usually the case in I-hold-a-grudge-against-you-and-vice-versa movies--we see it moderated now and again by the other, more human side of these two guys, neither of whom is really wicked or degenerated. This is where what I see as the strength of this film lies--and what some other posters considered the source of implausibility: the apparent inconsistency of the actions the two protagonists take. True, they are inconsistent, but it is because there are two strong, contradictory forces at play. Even if the movie exaggerates things a little, it still gets my respect for avoiding one-sidedness. We human beings are, as a matter of fact, pretty erratic creatures, says the movie. And given the right circumstances, we can be really nasty, too, though we'd never suspect ourselves of that.

    [***POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT***] And the ending? Sure, so things might have ended, well, more grimly. But does it really spoil the movie that much? I'd say, rather, that it simply rounds up the whole idea of the film, which is not utterly pessimistic, and definitely isn't judgmental. Granted, in a very good commentary-like scene towards the end, Affleck's character laughs in the rookie lawyer's face when the latter says that men are by nature good; but the film doesn't say we are incurably bad, either, and the ending only adds to that. By the way, I don't think it is all that nice-and-happy and doesn't fit the rest of the picture; the "better" side of the struggling Affleck, the one which comes out on top, is never really concealed earlier in the movie, while for Jackson things are still rather open-ended--though I've got to say that he deserved at least that much. [***END OF SPOILER***]

    The acting is really fine and convincing, the photography interesting, the soundtrack doesn't particularly stun, but doesn't irritate, either. My recommendation: do see this film if you have a chance. 7/10.
  • bajan13k14 March 2005
    This movie was surprisingly good, for many reasons. The most obvious is probably that the characters develop before, during, and after the presented story, as the film opens at a critical time for both of them and closes with them having changed major parts in their lives.

    I expected this to be a glorified version of Madd's Spy vs. Spy, or something of that nature, given the hype. However, it is not at the same pace at all... the violence is not cartoonish, its realistic. The characters are not simple, they are complex. They "have issues" and are both trying to find a better sense of balance in their lives, both do things which they regret... all in all, this is one of the most "human" movies I've ever watched.

    Even though the characters are deep, the movie does not try to emphasis it with drawn out scenes with dramatic music or anything, which actually makes it more like watching real people than watching a movie. It also makes for a more powerful effect overall because it is up to the watcher to notice the subtleties.

    The acting and directing are very well done, and there is some writing which surprised me in that it showed more about the characters rather than relating directly to the main conflict (I don't want to give too much detail and spoil it). The pacing is good and kept me interested throughout, partially to see what the main characters would do next and partially to see what, if anything, they would learn from the experience.

    It is not as "epic" as something like Shawshank Redeption, and doesn't deal with esoteric themes such as Meet Joe Black or ominous themes such as Equilibirum or 1984(the novel), but in a way it is more epic because it deals with normal people who struggle to be beneficial humans despite major mistakes, pressures, and conflicts.
  • Changing Lanes is a good movie with a well developed plot and a great cast. It is certainly an enjoyable thriller, as we follow two men, Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson, whose lives are turned upside down after a car crash. Neither character is portrayed as an antagonist or protagonist, we see the good and bad qualities of both of them, which makes for an interesting way of telling a story, as we support both but also see how they are both flawed.

    However, it never really surprised me, any twist and turn throughout can be predicted from a mile away. There's no big moment that will make you jump off of your seat. As well as that, it pacing could have been much quicker. There are far too many slow moments with heavy dialogue, it needed more car chase's and suspenseful parts, it never truly delivers on its potential.

    Though it may suffer from predictability, Changing Lanes is still an enjoyable ride that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good drama or thriller, just do not go out of your way to see it.

    A lawyer and a businessman's lives are turned upside down after a road incident.

    Best Performance: Samuel L. Jackson / Worst Performance: Amanda Peet
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The main premise of Changing Lanes is a promising one: two men, each at an important moment in his life, have a simple traffic accident that provokes a series of vengeful acts and, ultimately, a spiritual/ethical crisis for each man. Utilizing the structure and feel of a psychological thriller, the director increases the tension steadily throughout the film. Samuel Jackson helps the cause with his excellent portrayal of a man who has been battered around by life and is now disintegrating before our very eyes. We feel his long-held anger beginning to burst into rage, as well as his deep confusion and despair. Most of the other actors also deliver strong performances, especially Collette and Pollack. Even Affleck finds a good role for his limited abilities and unlimited personality, though his melodramatic attempt at showing an ethical crisis gets annoying by the end. Unfortunately, the interesting premise and the great acting are ruined by several scenes that are simply unbelievable and by a unsatisfying and sappy ending that goes against the overall atmosphere of the film.

    *SPOILERS AHEAD*

    The problems begin with the accident. I'm sorry, I live in New York, and there's no simply way that a Manhattan lawyer is ever - in this or anyone else's lifetime - going to offer a blank check to a total stranger after they've had an accident. My partner almost bailed out on the film at that point. She tried to suspend her belief, especially since the movie had just started, but this ridiculous premise tested her sorely. If Affleck is in such a hurry, why doesn't he simply exchange business cards with Jackson? A blank check? Please.

    There are several other unbelievable parts of the story: the file worth hundreds of millions of dollars that's so casually lost; the fact that it's the only official copy in existence; Jackson - who wants to take care of the accident correctly - obviously not bothering to call the police, whose report would have helped him in several ways (and, in fact, why do the police NEVER show up at all, especially since there are eventually TWO CARS simply abandoned on the busiest highway in New York - I don't think so); the whole fire sprinkler routine to get a simple file - we're talking thousands and thousands of dollars worth of water damage to a large law firm, not to mention Affleck's own desk, just to get into an unlocked drawer?; the hacker being able to delete and restore so many of Jackson's important accounts so quickly; etc., etc. Worst of all, why does Affleck never mention or seem to care about the fact that Jackson almost killed him? After exhibiting so much rage throughout the film, you'd think he'd bring it up at some point.

    Finally, the ending is terribly flat and uninspiring after the long build-up of tension. We're served up a high (and very shallow) moral lesson during a sappy Hollywood climax that defeats the well-developed ambiguities the rest of the film worked so hard to create. All the good acting Jackson did to create a complex character is thrown out the window as the foes suddenly and boringly settle their differences, Affleck makes a little speech, and then he even solves Jackson's familial drama - all in two minutes.

    *END OF SPOILERS*

    It's interesting to consider what could have been done with this film. A better writer and a better director could have turned this into a real classic. The elements are all there - they were simply poorly executed. Instead of the uninspiring ending, it would have been interesting to see more of a duel between the two protagonists, in which their rage and anger and their desire to do good all come into play. The premise of the story deserved a better portrait of trying to survive and do well in an often hostile and confusing world.
  • When `Changing Lanes' first opens, the viewer is presented with a montage of jagged credits, trendy jerking photography cruising NYC streets, and electronic beats that are so cool they could be used for cryogenic freezing. It quickly seems apparent that this film is simply a star-vehicle for Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson; it seems apparent that this is a cold and impersonal genre-exercise for a successful comedy director, Roger Michell (`Notting Hill'), to branch out; it seems to be all these things until the end of this sequence when the camera glances out the window of a school bus out onto the New York City skyline, and there we see it: the World Trade Center. Unlike Sam Raimi's upcoming `Spider-Man', delayed after September 11th so that the WTC could be digitally removed, this is a film unafraid to date itself, and unafraid to look at human truth.

    Affleck plays the role of the oddly named Gavin Banek (did they take the name ‘Ben Affleck', throw it in a blender, and add some new letters for good measure?), a high-power lawyer on the verge of becoming one of the partners at his law firm, alongside his father-in-law. Jackson is Doyle Gibson, a reforming alcoholic father of two clawing his way out of his hole and trying to save his marriage. On a critical day in both their lives, Doyle going to court to try winning joint-custody, and Gavin on his way to seal his career-making case, the two get into a minor accident on the FDR turnpike, causing Doyle to miss his hearing and Gavin to accidentally give Doyle a signed document that is critical to his case… and it all unravels from there.

    The two tumble in a daylong haze of malice and self-destruction, sabotaging each other's lives. Whenever either decides to throw in the towel and do the ‘right' thing, it is too late and the other has already escalated it to the next level. His life quickly falling down around him, Gavin begins to examine it for the first time, taking a deep look into his wife, his law firm, his boss/father-in-law, and himself… ultimately questioning his motivation for trying to retrieve the document in the first place.

    This is where the film really shines: many movies ask the question ‘what makes a man?' but `Changing Lanes' does it with honestly and authenticity. The screenplay, by Chap Taylor, asks if it is success, or if its providing for one's wife and kids, or if its true goodness, avoiding superficiality and delving into the motivations for each. In one telling monologue, Gavin's father-in-law, played with perfect tone by Sydney Pollack, says, `At the end of the day, I do more good than harm. What other standard have I got?' Unfortunately, the movie does not really ask the question of what makes a woman, even though both wives show real strength. The movie does not even seem to suggest that Gavin and Doyle's struggles could even be applied to women (obviously they could, had the movie explored that).

    Jackson, always an excellent actor, is great as Gibson even if he has performed better before. Surprisingly, in this film Affleck's acting actually seems to surpass Jackson's in this amazing performance that is probably the best we have seen from Affleck so far.

    All of the characters in the film, including minor-roles and extras, all exhibit a very human feel, and seeing real-feeling people on the screen has always been something rare and not to be taken for granted. The viewer comes to care about everyone in the picture: Gavin, Doyle, their wives, the guy at the bank, even the stranger at the bar.

    New York City itself is alive in this movie: it breathes, coughs, and gasps with Salvatore Totino's shaky, unsaturated, claustrophobic photography. Totino really looks at people and the city in the face, and does not try to make them prettier or uglier than they are. David Arnold's original electronic score is a refreshing change from the very poor attempts at orchestral music that most movies are now filled with. Arnold's score very effectively sets the mood and reinforces the tempo of the movie.

    `Changing Lanes' is a success for Roger Michell that shows us that a movie can have major stars, be entertaining, glossy, substantial, and pensive all-at-once.

    `Changing Lanes' is rated R for a fender-bender, destruction of office equipment, unseen infidelity, a shot of the World Trade Center, and honest depiction of the human condition.
  • "Changing Lanes" is a pretty good movie..for three quarters of its running time that is.

    The story centers on two men living very different life styles who through a quirk of fate, meet as the result of a traffic accident. Both it turns out, are headed to the court house for different reasons.

    Ben Affleck plays an arrogant self-centered Wall Street lawyer named Gavin Banek. He is going to court to represent his firm's takeover of child's trust fund. Samuel L. Jackson on the other hand plays Doyle Gipson who is headed to court for a custody battle with his wife (Kim Stauton) over their children. The accident changes both men's lives forever.

    Banek leaves Gipson stranded on the freeway but doesn't notice that he has dropped a file with information crucial to his case. Gipson arrives late for his court date after the judge has awarded custody of the children to his wife. Banek is given the rest of the day to produce the missing file in court and Gipson is distraught over the loss of his children.

    Banek, in an effort to force Gipson to turn over the file with the help of a colleague and former lover (Toni Collette - having a REAL BAD hair day), hires a computer hacker to effectively bankrupt Gipson and destroy his credit. Gipson on the other hand, tries to cause Banek to have a serious traffic accident to exact his revenge. Banek has to explain all of this to his boss and father-in-law Stephen Delano (Sydney Pollack) who arranges "to fix things". Gipson now finds he is bankrupt and cannot get the loan that was approved so that he could buy a house in order to keep his children in New York.

    The film is fine to this point. In the last quarter everyone suddenly comes to their collective senses and Director Roger Michell takes us through yet another "lives happily ever after" Hollywood ending. It's kind of a let down after seeing the cat and mouse games between the two main characters.

    The movie leaves us wondering about a lot of unfinished business. Consider the following: 1. Where were the cops at the scene of the accident? 2. On a crowded roadway, surely there would have been a few witnesses. 3. What happened to the "leaving the scene of the accident charge? 4. Why wasn't Gipson charged with attempted murder for tampering with Banek's car? And again, where were the cops? 5. Did Gipson ever regain solvency? 6. What happened to Banek's marriage? 7. Did Toni Collette find a new hairdresser?
  • sixty_four8 October 2002
    Shame about this movie. Good cast, and decent acting, but it's a see-through plot that feels completely forced. Too many scenes are "Hollywoodized," where the characters stumble into coincidences that simply just would not happen. And several holes in logic are required to make this movie run. Samuel Jackson's character goes into a loan office/bank and picks up a computer monitor in one scene, throwing it into the window of the office. Not only is he then allowed to leave the office without being stopped by the security guard/police, but they never seem to look for him either. Which is not to mention the assault he puts on two white guys at a bar earlier in the movie, again not getting pursued at all.

    The movie is too simplistic, trying to comment on a situational phenomenon while forcing its way through a plot that would be interesting if it seemed less contrived. The plot hinges on too many forced and improbable coincidences.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Uneven, but still strangely likable production has lawyer Ben Affleck and alcoholic insurance man Samuel L. Jackson having a minor accident on the freeway. Both are late for important appointments and Affleck makes the dire mistake of leaving Jackson stranded and accidentally leaving a hugely important document at the scene. Soon it is apparent that Jackson's tardiness to a court hearing was devastating as it becomes clear that wife Kim Staunton and their two young children are going to move west to get away from Jackson for good. Affleck's lost document creates a frenzied search to find Jackson and get the papers back, but we all know it is not going to be that easy. A wild and crazed cat and mouse game then starts as the road rage flows over into both men's lives. Now each are in a contest to destroy the other one before their enemy gets the chance. Fast-moving and quick-minded, "Changing Lanes" kept me interested until a somewhat contrived ending that really seemed to not fit in with the rest of the picture. Affleck and Jackson are both pretty good here and the supporting cast is strong enough to keep the momentum of the two leads moving. Not the best film ever made by a long-shot, but still not a bad little ride. Just be sure your ride does not hinder those around you. 4 stars out of 5.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Changing Lanes is fundamentally about two men who do bad things but are trying to do better. The main difference is that one is endorsed by society -- Ben Affleck's wall street banker -- and one isn't -- Samuel L. Jackson's alcoholic deadbeat dad. This difference in their social stations drives them into a conflict that causes both of them to revert to their worst impulses.

    As much as it offers ordinary revenge thrills, Changing Lanes is notable for recognizing the complexity and inequality of our social structure, which dominates even the most powerful of the characters in the film. Even the most obvious villains have reasons for their actions, and one can see how they're pushed into playing out their social roles. At the same time, it's not entirely deterministic -- there are right things to do, but they're difficult, usually involving hurting someone or giving up on some principle or another.

    Affleck acquits himself relatively well, although he's still Ben Affleck. Jackson is predictably great, as this is back when he still sometimes cared, and Amanda Peet is fantastic in a brief but memorable role as Affleck's amoral wife. Of course, the film is more than a bit melodramatic, with things escalating to a ridiculous extent over the course of one day, and the attempt at reforming Affleck's character towards the end feels a bit forced. It's still a mainstream Hollywood drama, and never really deviates from that style. But it's better than most such dramas, and is in the end a nice film that's been already forgotten as part of the ebb and flow of popular cinema. That forgetting is kind of justified -- it certainly won't go on anyone's best-ever list, resting as it does in the realm of the merely above-average -- but it's still worth a couple hours of your time.
  • Came into this movie when it was shown on t.v. at the part where the Ben Affleck character was meeting his wife in the restaurant. Was intrigued enough to rent it to watch with my husband. Actually we thought, based on our recent movie going experiences that it is pretty good. I know from personal experience what a seemingly minor fender bender can have on lives. Criticisms would be that we know immediately what kind of a person Gavin is at the time of the accident and his later reformation because of what. . . the sight of two kids. . . is a little implausible. Not only the two main characters but also Doyle's wife are supposed to be believable in major turn arounds. The cast was great and my favorite line was uttered by William Hurt, "you're not addicted to alcohol, you're addicted to chaos" Such an addiction is not going to be overcome by one good act. Still overall this was an absorbing, fast paced look at a slice of human life and into the human psyche. Also I loved the rain and the drowningness of it as the characters were drowning.
  • Ben Affleck has a better than average performance. Samuel L. Jackson is also good although more subdued than his typical bombastic self. I was impressed at how bleak the movie dared to be. I also felt for both characters. The only weakness in the film was it's substandard treatment of women. I thought Collette was wasted in her role and Peet was as frightening as the terminator. Whoever wrote this screenplay may have some issues with women or doesn't know any nice ladies. I was surprised by Sydney Pollack, because he is quite subtle in his performance and realistic. He seemed less self-aware than in "Eyes Wide Shut".
  • insideatl16 April 2020
    Pretty good movie with a good lesson about life. At the time it was made it was a new age Trading Places
  • I imagined this was going to be one film from the previews I'd seen, but in reality it turned out to be another - a far more subtle experience than I had expected. A lot of the people in the packed theatre where I saw it apparently expected that other film too; they seemed disappointed when they'd left - they'd probably been expecting yer basic escalating violence, with us cheering for Jackson as the good guy and Affleck as the bad. Not a black and white movie (no pun intended), more of a karma sort of thing, with the two main characters learning from each other in ways they never realized they would (or needed to). And heavy-handedness is nowhere to be seen. Kudos for that alone.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    You know what this movie reminded me of? LOL! School yard fights "You started it!". No, that's not a quote from the movie, but that's what it had reminded me of. Over all, "Changing Lanes" is a fast paced exciting movie that is pretty enjoyable.

    We just start off with Sam and Ben who are both caught in some horrific traffic jam and get into a car accident. Ben has a very important court case to get to and doesn't have enough time to go through swapping insurance numbers and such and tells Sam "better luck next time" leaving him with a car that is not drivable in the rain. Sam notices Ben left an important folder at the accident for his court case that could make or break his career. Sam also was due in court, for his custody of his children and his tardiness causes the lose of his children. Ben freaks out when he notices the folder is missing and tracks down Sam, but Sam isn't willing to give up the folder quite yet. They go back and fourth between revenge tactics that's pretty immature.

    It does have a happier ending thankfully where the two put their differences aside and actually end up helping each other. This is a decent movie and I'd recommend it.

    7/10
  • kayleenonme6 May 2002
    There were about 15 minutes in the beginning of the film which were decent. The rest of the movie was pointless and very improbable. It's too bad Samuel L. Jackson wasted his talent in yet another worthless film. Spider-Man was more realistic than this one.
  • The movie does an excellent job of identifying the main characters and setting out their motivations for wanting to be in court on time . Their subsequent collision on the expressway as both are preoccupied with their respective priorities is both very abrupt and very realistic. This scenario is one that anyone of us could find ourselves in at any time. I found myself wondering what I would do in that situation.

    What happens next would depend on the individuals involved and given the volatile nature of these individuals , it seems inevitable that one or both will blame the other for their problems that result from the collision and seek to strike back at the other to get revenge. This may sound immature and childish, but it is also frighteningly believable.

    Most people may be very calm and rational most of the time, but when they believe that they have been provoked or wronged by another, reason and passion fly out the window and are replaced by anger, rage and throughts of revenge. Events quickly spiral out of control. Changing Lanes was very entertaining and very unpredictable in its depiction of the lengths that both characters go to in order to strike back at the other. Ben Affleck and Samuel Jackson give first rate performances.
  • FilmOtaku9 August 2003
    Warning: Spoilers
    When I chose to watch Changing Lanes tonight, I made my decision based on the fact that I wasn't looking for something entirely thought-provoking. So it was with great surprise that I realized about thirty minutes into the film that this wasn't a classic `revenge' tale.

    *Possible spoilers herein*

    Changing Lanes stars Samuel L. Jackson as a recovering alcoholic who is fighting to keep his ex-wife from moving to Oregon from New York with his two children by providing them with a modest house to live in. Ben Affleck plays a young hotshot attorney who pretty much has the world at his fingertips. When the two get into a car accident in the beginning of the film with no one being hurt, the careless handling of the situation by Affleck sparks events that end up changing both of their lives in the course of one day.

    While the viewer can place equal blame on both parties for their actions, this is not a routine revenge flick due to the fact that morality and (seemingly) feelings of regret seem to follow both of these men, despite the fact that they continue on. It also calls into question whether the events that take place would have precipitated the direction their lives eventually take, both personally and professionally. These men are not heroes; rather, their flaws make them entirely human. I am not a fan of Ben Affleck, in fact, I try to avoid his films as much as possible, but he was quite good in this film, as was the usually great Samuel L. Jackson.

    Of course, this was not a perfect film. There were some plot holes, overly dramatic moments, and a completely useless scene featuring Ben Affleck in a church, but overall it was a sufficiently good and thought-provoking film. Not exactly what I was looking for, but surprisingly refreshing.

    --Shelly
  • Changing Lanes is sold as a thriller. There was nothing thrilling about this movie. All crucial elements to the story were shown in the trailer. Ben Afflack's character Gavin is flat and the film shows no reasonable explanation for why he suddenly changes into some one with backbone.

    Samuel L. Jackson's Doyle doesn't follow the character's development either. He is meant to be a regular guy who is just trying to do the right thing. Why then does he do the wrong thing? His soon-to-be or already ex-wife (this was a little confusing in the movie.) is about the least believable female character I've ever seen. We first meet her at a court date Gavin has missed. She seems unreasonable and shrewish. Then towards the end of the movie she is understanding and sympathetic then a few minutes later she is unbelievably enraged and becomes vindictive. About the only plausible character in this entire movie is William Hurt as Doyle's sponsor. He is quiet and does the only true-to-life thing in the movie. He says that Doyle is a drama queen and is only creating this turmoil for the sake of turmoil. All too true. As a part of the movie-going public I demand that a character in a drama and/or thriller have some motivation behind his actions. In Changing Lanes all any character does is act or react to move the thin plot along. This is a poorly written, and heavy-handed movie. I would not recommend it to any one.
An error has occured. Please try again.