MovieChat Forums > Changing Lanes (2002) Discussion > This is an AWFUL motion picture

This is an AWFUL motion picture

posted 20 years ago by JimmyLoneWolf
10 replies | jump to latest

First off, I have NEVER before visited a film's message board strictly to criticize it, and usually despise such practices. I believe the overall goal of these boards is to enlighten, not annoy.

That being said, I simply couldn't stand to see anymore heedless praise heaped upon this undeserving picture and had to start a thread concerning what I believe is one of the most overrated American films of the last few years (yes, I am entirely serious in that statement).

The critics (especially the usually reliable Roger Ebert) REALLY dropped the ball on their assessments of this film, and I don't think I'm being egotistical or conceited in any way by pointing that out. Take a look at the Rotten Tomatoes website and you'll see what I mean.

I realize that it is unfashionable to knock a Hollywood film that attempts to have an "indie" sensibility, but I refuse to sit by and hear people calling this thing a "work of genius" and "brilliant". Frankly, I'd rank one or two Joel Schumacher films higher than this, and thats saying alot. For heavans sake, both Falling Down and Phone Booth were FAR more interesting and original than this film, and they're both DEEPLY flawed!!

Changing Lanes is NONE of these things. It is utterly uninspired during every minute of its running time. It is completely at the mercy of its plotting, frequently relying on the sorts of coincidental encounters and overcooked "not gonna take it anymore" moments that are the kiss-of-death for films attempting to put "characters" above "story".

This film is VERY Hollywood, but it pretends it isn't, and I think THAT is what I find most offensive about it: its tone of unjustified, unearned self-importance. I have nothing whatsoever aginst big-budget films with big stars, nor do I have anything against Affleck or Jackson (I believe both have done good work in the past...in Jackson's case, GREAT work). The movie just simply doesn't work. It DOES NOT reward the investments we make in the characters and DOES NOT allow us to adequately suspend our disbelief as a movie like this should.

The film is uncomfortably lodged between tense melodrama and restrained character-study. The result is that scenes which should contain tremendous emotional catharsis come off either undercooked (most of the first half hour) or (last hour) overcooked , while scenes intended to illustate precise human foibles and contradictions are far too broad to contain any genuinely "new" insights.

I'll be as honset as I can: I was bored to death watching this film, and not because I "didn't get it." Believe me, I "got" every minute of it, and it was horribly underwhelming.

It is here that I will say something for which I expect some of the posters on this board to come after me: I believe that anyone who considers this film genuinely "insightful" has either not seen enough movies OR has simply read too many positive reviews of this film and has conditioned him/herself to "appreciate" it. I suspect the second theory is closer to home. I say it only because I once thought the way I believe some of the posters on this site are thinking presently..."with SO many positive reviews, this film can't REALLY be awful, so those that think it is mustn't 'get' it".

My friends, you've paid the price for lazy film criticism. Remember all those critics who slammed 2001: A Space Odyssey when it came out? Well guess what, the inverse CAN happen, and in the case of Changing Lanes, it did!!! Let me explain.

When film lovers see this film after reading all those glowing reviews, their logical response is: I must have missed something...it WAS good, I just need to see it again. Then, they defend the movie because they're afraid to look stupid, not realizing that the CRITICS who wrote the reviews had to get their assesments in on a deadline and were afraid to be the "only critic" to slam such a "socially important" film. Word must have spread about "the new Ben Affleck/SLJ film" being "really good" and, like Lemmings, the major critics were afraid to dissent, despite their gut reactions. Ebert was probably afraid he'd give the next "American Classic" a negative review.

For heavans sake, Lars von Trier's Dogville (WHATEVER you may think of it) was one of the most ambitious films I've seen in a long time, and it got waaaay fewer positive reviews than Changing Lanes, a film that not only attempts less, but DELIVERS less (happy ending?). Since when was, "well, they ARE trying!" a justification for giving a mediocre film excellent reviews.

I guess I'm just bitter because the trailer made this thing look like the garbage it was, but I gave it a chance because of the critics. Boy did I get played!! Changing Lanes really is "fake art" of the worst sort. It is filmmaking of the "plot-first" variety masquerading as something more. And lest you think I'm some wacked out "indie-nut", let me add that MANY big-budget "Hollywood" films have effectively created compelling characters (American Beauty and The Insider are just two very good recent examples). This one just ain't one of them.

If you agree with me, and ESPECIALLY if you disagree with me, I'd LOVE to hear your opinion. Keep in mind, I don't think this is the worst film in recent years, just the most overrated. So please respond and lets get a good, healthy debate going!!!

[–] Senator_Corleone 20 years ago

I like how you fight so fiercely to hold your own opinion of this (excellent) movie, but the multitudes of other people who disagree with you are "lemmings" or lazy.

[–] Yojimbo28 19 years ago

Well jimmy, the first time I saw this movie I loved it. Lucky for me, I have you to set me straight on how bad it really was. (Translation: Nobody gives a damn what you think about this movie as long as you have a superior, better-than-the-rest-of-us attitude....hope you enjoyed writing so many paragraphs that no one gives a *beep* about....let us know when your book of movie reviews gets published)

[–] mbiajc 19 years ago

Ok, firstly, the first time I ever saw this film was in a cinema and I literally hadn't heard anything about it but the name. I was blown away. Mainly because I thought the name sounded like a cheesy action film which is what I was excpecting as oposed to an intelectually stimulating drama about the substance of reality. This film dared to ask the questions that most producers dread, they took a deep breath and plunged head first into the very fibre of moral absolutes. Personally I can't stand Ben Afflec in most of his roles and feel that generally his is a highly overrated actor. However this film is so well written and directed that even Afflec couldn't screw up his role. It is quite fantastic how intense such a dialogue driven film can be. The pace was perfect style very fitting to the content. The reason there have been so many positive reviews of this film is because it is ... guess what ... an amazing film. Don't write off people who disagree with you as sheep just because they are in the majority.

[–] flodman123 19 years ago

Yeah, I disagree with your review, but I only have one real problem with it:

"not only attempts less, but DELIVERS less (happy ending?)"

So what's wrong with a happy ending? Are you so anti-Hollywood that if a film has a happy ending it's automatically a sellout-Hollywood ending?

Shut up and eat your pinecone!

[–] JimmyLoneWolf 19 years ago

Good point flodman. There's nothing wrong with happy endings for certain movies. The contention (which I made) that these sorts of endings are intrinsically disappointing was definitely incorrect. I guess I just let my aggravation with the movie get a bit out of hand there.

Ok, now to some of the other comments. I never actually said the "people" who like the movie are "lemmings" as several of you have pointed out...rather it is the CRITICS who I call that name because it seemed to me that they all gave exceedingly GREAT (not good, GREAT) reviews to this OK at best movie.

So for anyone who didn't read any reviews of this movie before seeing it...that statement DOES NOT APPLY to you. Fair enough?

I'll admit that I DID read a few reviews before seeing it (I have since stopped doing this unless the suspense is absolutely KILLING me), and also included MYSELF among the people who FELL for the critics glowing reception. In other words, I'm blaming myself. So to those who seemed to believe that I was calling OTHERS who did the same thing "lemmings", that would make ME a lemmings too right? Boy, I must be some kind of "film snob" to label myself a follower for all too see. But I WAS, and I'm sure some others (maybe not on this board) are too.

I wish people would have the cojones to admit that sometimes we let the critics determine our receptions to a particular film. Critics are great, but they can sometimes be wrong...all I'm saying is...decide for yourself.

[–] Yojimbo28 19 years ago

Who gives a damn what critics say? It's all opinion. You attack the critics for giving "exceedingly GREAT reviews to this OK at best movie". You make that statement as if it's a fact, but it's just your opinion that this movie is OK, it doesn't mean that that's everyone's opinion. If a critic thought it was a great movie they're allowed to review it as such, and we're allowed to agree or disagree. It doesn't take a lot of effort to write a glowing review of Citizen Kane or to give zero stars to You Got Served. It's this type of movie that critics will differ on. As many "exceedingly GREAT" reviews as you saw for this movie, I promise you I can find as many negative reviews for it as well. I don't think people should let reviews decide what they see and what they don't. I don't think you should say that you "FELL for the critic's glowing reception" as if they tricked you into seeing this movie. Bottom line, they liked this movie a lot more than you did. That doesn't mean it's their fault you saw it. It's just the opposite effect as when you enjoy a movie that a critic attacks. I'm glad you stopped reading reviews before seeing movies. Not only are critics giving an opinion of a movie that might end up being a lot different than yours, sometimes they give away plot twists or other things from the movie which I think is inexcusable.

[–] JimmyLoneWolf 19 years ago

I think we pretty much agree about the role of criticism.

I just think this movie is really overrated. That was my real purpose in starting this thread, not so much a criticism of critics as a criticism of the movie itself. I only used the critics to illustrate the point (which you seem to agree with) that we should all make up our own minds.

One question to everyone reading:

This movie is intended to be a "realistic" depiction of human behavior under stressful situations. Is there anyone out there who, after illegally leaving the scene of an accident (which YOU were partially responsible for), would shout "better luck next time" to the other participant?

Also, after this accident, would you be able to just SPOT the guy on the streets of NYC hours later in a driving rainstorm?

I let stuff like this go in escapist cinema like Kill Bill, but in a movie that presupposes realism (however stylishly presented)? No way!!! The movie is LOADED with unbelievable stuff like this and it just weakens a movie that COULD have been so much more powerful IMO.

[–] dv_forever 17 years ago

Changing Lanes is not an awful motion picture. It is painfully predictable and has absurd scenes of the Hollywood variety. Jackson unscrews Affleck's wheel, Affleck tricks Jackson into going nuts at the school. Stuff like that.

These are all plot devices rearing their ugly heads. As a long time enthusiast of cinema the world over, I can see these things very quickly. However, you are being too hard on Changing Lanes. There are some interesting character dynamics in this film and I really wish it did take itself more seriously and not have these cheesy melodramatics here and there like what I already mentioned.

But there are some good scenes, especially Amanda Peet trying to soothe her husband into compliance at the restaurant. That was really well done. Of course Affleck can't act, but I can deal with that. You see some serious tension between them.

There are several moments like this that make Changing Lanes a worthwhile experience. It's no classic or anything remotely significant, but it goes places a standard Hollywood melodrama simply doesn't. The characterizations are very fine, especially from the supporting cast. It's only Jackson and Affleck as well as the sometimes nonsensical plot that impede this film from being a bigger statement about morality in the modern world.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bonsai-superstar 10 years ago

Came here to post basically the same thing. I couldn't even finish this mess.