the audience applauded

How sad is this?

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Gavin Baneck (Ben Affleck) is a lawyer who is on his way to an important court hearing when he is involved in a minor fender-bender with Doyle Gipson (Samuel L Jackson) an alcoholic businessman whom is also on his way to court for a custody hearing between his wife and kids. Baneck is so pre-occupied with getting to court on time that he is only interested in paying Gipson off rather than doing the right thing which annoys Gipson. This seemingly minor fender-bender sets off a chain of events which proves to be a fairly life-changing day for both men....The interesting thing about Changing Lanes is that I can see it as being a film that will easily divide the masses; on the one hand some may see it as a ridiculous, far-fetched and increasingly improbable affair that lacks any sort of logic and on the other hand others may view it as being an alarmingly accurate social commentary on how seemingly rational people will resort to increasingly desperate and unreasonable measures in order to get one up on their rival. Naturally, I can see arguments for both points of view and will attempt to give a balanced review...Despite what people may think I for one can totally believe in the foundation of this story; two people, both frustrated and perhaps not paying attention collide on the freeway. The lawyer is rich and is so wrapped up in his own affairs that he attempts to buy the poorer man off. The poor man, despite his misgivings has some moral fibre and wants things done right, but the hot-shot lawyer is in too much of a hurry and disappears leaving the poor man with no car and a massive sense of frustration. This side of it I get and I can fully believe that this type of thing is believable which makes the foundation of the film work, but there are other events in this film that don't make much sense, are hard to believe or are just plain contrived....Baneck drops a load of paperwork on the floor in front of Gipson and Gipson happens to pick up the most important document out of everything that Baneck had in his possession. Possible? Maybe. Contrived? Certainly. Baneck's secretary recommends that Baneck gets in touch with a guy who can fix everything and solve Baneck's problems (which results in poor Gipson becoming bankrupt). This guy that Baneck's secretary knows just uses a computer to empty his bank account in order to declare Gipson bankrupt, but there is no indication as to who he is or how he achieves this???? He's just some guy with a PC who presses a couple of buttons and hey voila!!! Who is he working for and how has this skill-set been acquired?? On a slightly lesser note, I'm also puzzled as to why on a busy American Highway that not one person would pull over after an accident as an independent witness??? This is a lesser point and I realise it would kill the narrative, but in the real world I don't believe that none of the following drivers would have stopped. I also wasn't entirely impressed with Samuel L Jackson's character; he's an alcoholic and a f***up, but there's little explanation or insight into his character which is a shame as we're never given much of an understanding of him.Despite some of the ridiculous contrivances mentioned above where the film does come good is in its representation of the two main characters; both men (in their own ways) are fairly self-obsessed individuals who fail to look at the bigger picture and predictably this comes to the fore in the closing stages creating a rather safe and predictable end.I've given this film quite a lot of stick, but to be fair I did quite enjoy the film. The interesting thing with this film is that both men are rational at the start and I don't believe that the two men were bad in any way shape or form. I personally just think that these men both collided (I think metaphorically as well) and something as trivial as being late for court appointments and missing paperwork can cause irrational and unexplainable thought processes.Overall, it's a decent enough social commentary/character study, but with some rough edges.

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

Aside from the professional critics, just about everyone else agrees that Changing Lanes (2002) is a flawed film. Exactly where it goes wrong, however, differs from viewer to viewer. I would nominate the confessional scene. Obviously designed to change the hero's heart, it rings false to me and seems out of character. The fact that there's no build-up or previous reference to religion, doesn't help either. Yes, I realize that such a scene is necessary, but usually it's the heroine or the best friend who brings a protagonist to his or her senses. To introduce a priest from left field goes right against the grain – particularly as we've had no inkling at all of religion or religious beliefs up to this point. So, for me, the movie just fell apart. A pity! They spent a lot of money on it, and Sydney Pollack gives a great performance, easily outshining the nominal stars, Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson. An excellent Paramount DVD.

Don't worry the Spoiler is at the end and I'll warn you.So I wasn't expecting anything , to the matter of fact i was expecting something awful , boring and very commercial , but wait, I was so so Wrong this is a dark clever film , very well acted A surprise for me because if Ben Affleck is in a movie I think twice before I watch it (but I have to recognize lately he has being all right) and Samuel Jackson after snake on a plane I don't know what to expect but they did great.The script is very clever , dark and original the directing is nice nothing you haven't seem before but all properly crafted, the rest of the cast is solid and how could you go wrong with Sydney Pollack , William Hurt ,Tonni Collete ,Richard Jenkins...At the end I recomed this film specially if you catch it by surprise like me give it a change You'll not regret.***SPOILERRRR*** The only think I would have change is the end and I'm not saying is bad the one that the movie have , but it makes it alittle commercial , but at the same time it makes it fair; and that is a contradiction because one of the points of the story is showing that live isn't always fair. So I would have ended the film when they finish the conversation in the Cofee Shop after the day of all the events 11 minutes earlier that will be the Cannes film festival cut :=) the other one you can take it to Hollywood. Anyways a great surprise.WATCH IT IF YOU CAN.