Hey folks, Harry here.... Seems Massawyrm lines up on another side of a fence from another reviewer. This is a first. Nobody ever disagrees with him. Ahem... Actually, it happens quite often, but ya know what... It is a Sam Jackson movie, and I often find it impossible to not enjoy the hell out of every friggin movie that guy stars in. No matter what else is going on. Sam is... simply.... the man. Here's two reviews from different people with different takes. Read on....
Hola all. Everyone's favorite chain-smoking, Dr. Pepper Swilling, Indie schilling mad man here with a look at the totally-misrepresented-in-the-ads Samuel L. Jackson/Ben Affleck morality play "Changing Lanes".
"Wait Massawyrm. Hold the phone. Changing Lanes isn't a morality play. It's a thriller. An intense heart stopping thriller. I've seen the ads. The music crescendos. I hear the Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum Bum-bum-bum-bum! That's the music that tells me this is a thriller! I see Ben Affleck's car lose it's tire and careen off the road! I actually watch Sam "The Man" beat down a man with a phone and I saw him with the tire iron! This is a thriller. You know, the kind with all sorts of action. A twisty thrill ride with one heck of a kapow! ending that will leave me reeling Sixth Sense style! I can tell. I've seen the trailer."
Folks, you've been lied to.
No, this isn't a new thing, it's not the start of a queer new trend to trick you into seeing something most of America won't pay full ticket price to see. This is the old trend of tricking you into seeing something most of America wouldn't pay full price to see. And it's really fucking unfortunate.
Why? Because this is a good movie, a strong movie with moments of subtle acting genius. Its a small movie. Sold big.
Imagine how pedestrian "Eve's Bayou" would've seemed if it had been sold as a psychic thriller with all the bum-bum-bum hoopla they've been force feeding us the past week over "Changing Lanes". You'd probably have walked out of it the same way I walked out of "Changing Lanes" last night. Unfulfilled, unthrilled and completely baffled over the marketing campaign generated for this film. I mean what were they thinking?
Paramount. What were you thinking? Did you really think the bait and switch would work? Were you counting on name recognition and loud music to carry you over to week two? Jesus Christ was this movie done a disservice.
"Changing Lanes" is the interesting, cleverly written, story of two guys, who are nowhere near perfect (but are definitely trying to a certain extent), who meet by accident (quite literally) and become entangled in one another's lives. Of course, this entanglement is not a good thing as the aftermath of the accident just doesn't go as it should. What happens next is the two men (Jackson and Affleck for those of you living in a cave outside of Murmansk) play a dangerous game of tit for tat, piece by piece ruining each others lives. But it's not really done in a "Thrilling" way. Rather it's done the way it should be: slowly, deliberately revealing the characters flaws and strengths as we see that neither man is really a party to just plain bad luck. Both guys dig their own holes.
There are moments in this that you think "You know if they'd only explain what happened to this person over here, then all would be solved" and then you realize, running the story over in your head that there's no way either guy can tell it without major omissions about their involvement in the escalation of the situation. They just can't. That's where this movie goes right.
The other place where this movie goes right is in the casting. First let's start with the two reasons people are going to see this movie. First Ben (despite the fact that on his worst day Sam can act circles around Affleck on his best) because lets face it, Affleck puts asses in seats. Despite his track record. Despite the fact that he's got the range of a busted potato gun. Sam puts geek asses in seats, but Affleck can bring in the masses. And you know what, here he does a bang up job. In fact, I'll go so far as to say this is the most depth of character Affleck's ever shown. There were moments where I almost (ALMOST) forget that it's Ben Affleck. But come on, Ben Affleck plays Ben Affleck. Just like Bruce Willis always plays Bruce Willis. People likes what he does and there's no real reason to stop him from doing it. America loves knowing exactly what to expect from a certain core group of their actors. Ben is one of those core actors. And here Ben shows us an interesting Ben. He acts the hell out of this role. He gives it his all and he sells it. Affleck shows equal parts wife cheating lawyer sleaze mixed with a healthy dose of ethical "I just wanna do the right thing and why can't everyone just like me" humanism. And he's good. Real good.
And then there's Sam. What can be said about Sam that hasn't been said? The guys a force to be reckoned with. He's the Lee Marvin of the modern age. Cool, cunning and chock full of a silent menace that at any moment can explode into a fury of raw, unfettered emotion. He's a mans man in a world of pretty boys. When he's on screen the man is whatever he wants to be. And here he's no different. Here he shows us a down trodden man, a man beaten down into the ground by alchaholism who's risen from the ashes of his old self with the sole purpose of being a better father. That's all he wants. To be a dad again. But it's an uphill battle.
Here Jackson sheds the Cunning. He sheds the cool. He sheds the "I know more than you and I can kick your ass at the same time" stereotype that scripts keep trying to box him into but we all love so much. Here he gives us yet another great, deep character to chew on, digest and add to our mental collections of great Sam performances.
And then there's the supporting cast.
Wow. I mean, wow. You wanna talk about solid actors and actresses turning what could have been mediocre phoned in bit parts into acting gold? How about William Hurt as Sam Jackson's AA sponsor. There is this moment in the film, my favorite moment, in which William Hurt is yelling at Sam and he gets up in his face and overdramatically delivers a line. And the line isn't cool. And it's overdelivered. And it's so freaking real I couldn't believe it. I was reminded of that moment in Boogie Nights where Mark Wahlberg and his mom have it out and Wahlberg throws a fit and screams about leaving. It's that kind of real. That painful, wincing moment where the fantasy of the movie fades out and reality sets in and you feel it. You're there. You can almost feel the spittle spray off of Hurt's tongue onto your face and you feel just how real that moment is. For a single moment in this film Jackson and Hurt ascend into the Mount Olympus of acting gods and leave the rest of the world behind. Hurt has a very small role in this movie, but not a single second is wasted on him. He is the conscience that Jackson desperately needs and he is simply remarkable.
Then there's Amanda Peet. Whoa. I had no idea. This isn't fanboy gush here, folks. This isn't residual images of "The Whole Nine Yards" hit scene channeling themselves up from my trouser snake into my fingers. No, uh, guys. She's really good. Gone is the goofball adorability of "Jack and Jill" or "Body Shots". Here Peet delivers with a maturity we haven't seen from her before that shows in her eyes as she delivers a beautifully written monologue about the nature of the life she's chosen as a lawyers wife. Her lips are moving and words are coming out, but I tell you she's speaking with her eyes. You simply cannot take your gaze away from them. Not because you think they're beautiful, but because half of what she's saying is really coming from them. It's unreal. I haven't seen someone use their eyes this powerfully in years. It's just something you don't often get to see in this day and age. Her baby blues just exude a cold understanding, all the while showing traces of love and compassion. But they're hiding something. There's a complexity to few moments onscreen that you can really appreciate; one moment in particular that resounded an audible gasp from the crowd. Another truly stellar supporting role.
And then there's Toni Collette who, while having considerable more screen time, doesn't deliver with the power that Hurt and Peet give in their small, concentrated doses. Instead she is impressive in her subtlety. She never once in the film discusses her feelings, emotions or hopes; but you know them. You have to read between the lines with her character, but Collette secretly passes you the cliff notes without your even noticing. Bam! One second they're in your lap and you had no clue at all that she could be that deep. She is the Jilted affair, the longing that things could be different in another life. The missed moments. And she, like the rest of the cast nails it.
So what went wrong? If this is so well acted and cleverly written, why will people be upset just because it's not what they were expecting? Quite simply, because there are moments where it almost feels like its TRYING to be a thriller. But they fall flat. That moment in the car with Affleck that the trailer always ends on? It's so much more suspenseful in the trailer. Every time the action rises, it comes to a letdown.
It's like the brown tooth metaphor. You guys know what I'm talking about. That disturbing image that you can get in your head when your about to hit that "special moment" and you realize you have to start all over again if your ever gonna finish. But you just can't get the image of the brown tooth out of your head. And when you do and you come close again it just pops back up to let you back down. That's what the climactic moments in this film are like. At times this feels like a watered down two man version of "Falling Down" without the bat. It just lacks the teeth to get you to even once grab the armrest, even though it feels like it's trying really hard to get you to. Director Roger Michell just never finishes the audience off. We're ready, we're waiting. But then we get the morality play ending, the ending that pulls back the curtain and shows us the point of the movie.
And you know what? It's a damn fine point, a great point, and a wonderful ending. But the audience wanted that great thriller ending. Don't sell us Bum-bum-bum and then fail to give us the bum-bum-bum. Why? Because the audience goes home feeling bad, just having seen a good, memorable movie but wishing they'd seen a mediocre, forgettable one with the bum-bum-bum.
The further away I get from this movie, the more I like it. In many cases that's good. Sometimes its the mark of a brilliant film; one that sends you away scratching your head but later puts a smile on your face. But it's not that kind of good movie. This is the kind you most likely won't enjoy while watching because it's not at all what you thought it would be.
This would have been a great small, fall film. The type that shouldn't be allowed to make alot of money because there's great acting and nothing blows up. This isn't bum-bum-bum. Go into this knowing that fact and maybe you'll be able to see the movie I wasn't able to.
Until next time friends, smoke 'em if ya got 'em. I know I will.
Click here to put animal crackes in my briefs!
Harry here, then there is Stephen... And he has a radically different view of the film. So who is right? Well given my track record with disagreeing with Massawyrm almost habitually, I'd be tempted to say he's wrong... However, sometimes we agree... And given my affinity for Sam Jackson movies and that I have no active hatred or distaste for Ben... I might actually like this one. But here's Stephen with the different take....
Hi,
I wanted to inform you of this trite and boring film, which I had the unfortunate pleasure of enduring. Here is my review if you decide to post it:
It is hard and very sad to watch Samuel L. Jackson in a bad movie, especially since this is his first one. Written by Chap Taylor (a production assistant on three movies), Changing Lanes is a disappointment on many levels. Previews advertise the film as a semi-serious "road rage" drama and what crazy things can happen to two people after a car accident. These previews fail to capture the reality of the film, which suffers mostly from a script that is troubled and uninteresting.
The plot, I think, is best described if Sam Jackson does the talking. Here's what he said on Jay Leno (4.9.02), "It's actually about these two guys [Gavin Banek and Doyle Gibson] who have a fender-bender and during the course of the day, because one guy feels he has lost something because of what the other guy has done to him. He holds a particular item hostage so he can get it back. One guy does something to the other and another guy does something to the other, and before you knew it there is a lot of chaos, but they both end up growing a bit toward the end of the day."
The plot is basically that, but Jackson left out the most critical piece of information of all. The film takes place in one single day, which is completely impossible considering everything that happens. Both characters are not of much interest, even though it is kind of heart-breaking to watch Doyle Gibson's struggle to comfort his family and get his life back in order. Gavin Banek treats Gibson like scum through the film, but acts surprised when he receives the shit from underneath Gibson's shoes at one point during the film.
Changing Lanes depends on its characters, but they are all fabricated clichés of what is good and evil. Furthermore, the file Gibson has in his possession is the second thing the film depends on is. It unwillingly becomes the latter for frustration and chaos between the two characters. The problem is, who wants to see a movie about a fucking file? The film attempts to make the audience care, but fails miserably.
Roger Michell, whose Notting Hill was quite a hit, did the best he could with the material. Samuel L. Jackson played his character with some dignity, but he was deeply undermined by Ben Affleck's trite and arrogant Gavin Banek. Most of their dialogue was based on hate and forgiveness, yet none of it paid off. This is partially due to Taylor's script, which also focused on too many locations and character interactions in New York. When I thought the most painful aspect to criticize is the day in which it is set, the ending pretty much takes the prize. Nothing else renders the film of its intended purpose and existence as much as this.
In a nutshell, Changing Lanes is an unengaging film full of tired sequences and unbelievable coincidences. Moreover, when Jay Leno proclaims "it's one of the smartest pictures [he has] seen this year," you know something can not be right. Changing Lanes probably looked interesting on the page, but as a film it does not.
Or located under the following: CLICK HERE
Take good care,
Stephen.
