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.
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.