MovieChat Forums > Changing Lanes (2002) Discussion > This movie was flawed in many ways

This movie was flawed in many ways


It was enjoyable and the ending was well-acted but I'm not convinced. There are too many anomalies. I know this is long but there is a lot to explain.

The impact of SL Jackson's crash was severe. He would have been injured or in shock. In fact, his initial calmness and politeness at the scene didn't fit his character. They tried to paint him as having a big temper and one predisposed to acting irrationally in chaotic situations.

And wouldn't you be particularly strung out if you were craving alcohol and rushing for the most important meeting of your life? Sure, not everyone would be, but SL Jackson's character was supposed to be one "addicted to chaos" (as the AA guy said)

We don't know that SLJ is "addicted to chaos". In his initial scenes (on top of the car crash), he comes across and wise, calm, intelligent and a loving father. Look at the first AA meeting and particularly his conversation at the house inspection.

At this point, we have no idea he may be a bad person or has anger problems. I'd be surprised if any viewers didn't have strong sympathy for him when Affleck said, "better luck next time". I think an initial scene which actually shows his true irrational self (as his ex-wife seems to know all about) was a bad omission. The attack on the guys at the bar was a good scene, but it was ill-placed in my opinion. The audience is led to believe he did that because he saw the red mist after losing his children, not because he's capable of that anyway.

So to conclude this point, I HATED Affleck's character after the car crash, and barely managed to regain sympathy for him. If we had already been forced to dislike SL Jackson's character at this point in time, dramatic tension over who to side with would have been greatly increased.

Moving on, the blank check thing that someone mentioned was obvious. In seeing how hysteric and flustered about being late Affleck was, of course you'd accept it. You'd think he's an *beep* yes, but you'd still take it.

Then, having been left without a ride on the freeway, your car obviously wrecked, surely you'd be able to flag down a good Samaritan? In Australia anyway.

SL Jackson's character furthermore owned a pager, but no mobile phone to notify the court he was in a car accident. For a grown man in the 21st century not to have a cell is unlikely. This is a little too convenient in my opinion.

SL Jackson's judge was a little harsh in my opinion. Sure it may be difficult to believe someone claiming to be in a car accident, but there would definitely be channels he could go through to seek a retrial. A police report on the accident should go far.

Then, the most infuriating error. Ben Affleck just so happens to spot, from a car mind you, SL Jackson walking around in the vast city of New York. What are the odds?? I thought the reason why SL Jackson was ignoring Affleck was because it was a case of mistaken identity. But no.

Affleck, rashly decides to take drastic measures to get the file back after SL Jackson yells at him for taking away his time. He realises here that SL Jackson doesn't covet money. He had no idea what the implications for Jackson was - why he was so upset about losing 20 minutes. But he never bothered to ask. People get angry. A rational person would think that a bit of time to cool off would do wonders. Especially seeing SL Jackson was so calm and polite directly after the accident. That and maybe a explanation that without the file he'd be facing a jail sentence.

Also, being greatly worried about a possible jail sentence, why is he so willing to break the law even more severly and obviously? Affleck was STUPID in this case. Isn't he an intelligent lawyer wizened about the ways of the world?

Later, SL Jackson receives the threat on his answering machine, where both his name and Banek's name are spoken. The threat is declared explictly and the proof of it's execution is shown in the bank records. SO GO TO THE BLOODY POLICE! That message is evidence. This leads me to think that either the writers have ignored this possibility to make the story more interesting, or SL Jackson's character is incredibly stupid. But as I said previously, he seemed reasonably intelligent earlier on.

Later actions reeked of his reeked of stupidity, like sabotaging Affleck's car and falling for the bait at the elementary school. (At the threat of calling the police, the trap was clear to anybody with 6th grade level analytical skills). But then at the end he became intelligent and deep-thinking again. Odd.

Affleck was involved in a very serious, high-speed accident. But the realistic effect was not there. The car conveniently came to a stop in the emergency lane, and no other cars were affected by the chaos. Neither was there a good Samaritan or at least a call for an ambulance.

A note about Affleck's wife. What point was that dinner scene? Why was she so reasonable and supportive to Affleck despite being cheated on etc. She seemed very intelligent also and this behaviour was out of place. I considered that she'd been told to say that by her father but at the second dinner scene (with Mum), it appeared doubtful this so. If it was, it should have been revealed.

Lastly, when all is over, SL Jackson is happily greeted by his ex-wife and kids just because Affleck spoke to her for 5 minutes. Sure, it explains a few things about why SL Jackson acted the way he did, but it doesn't take back the fact that he attempted murder, making him a dangerous criminal that shouldn't be near her kids. And if I remember correctly, didn't she accept SL Jackson's explanation at the jail but reject him because he is one to escalate chaos?

For someone as level-headed as the ex-wife, I find it difficult to believe she didn't want to press charges on Affleck. He committed crimes, and one of them involved her children. Sure, he may be helping them to buy a house, but for a character like hers, his actions would be unforgivable. It is too "happily ever after"

So there is my essay about the problems with this movie. Some points may be picky, but there are just as many holes in this movie compared to other Hollywood films.

reply

Well you have gone to a lot of trouble to express your views on this movie so I thought I would be the first to respond.

You raise some interesting plot flaws/questions for consideration. I will attempt to provide my perspective on some of them;

" I think an initial scene which actually shows his true irrational self (as his ex-wife seems to know all about) was a bad omission. The attack on the guys at the bar was a good scene, but it was ill-placed in my opinion. The audience is led to believe he did that because he saw the red mist after losing his children, not because he's capable of that anyway". I would think that this was more the need to ensure Jackson is seen as a "good guy". This would be more around his publicity and "good guy image". The story would have had more edge to it if the "character" and anger came out earlier as you point out. But my slant on this was publicity and demands on character development by SLJ himself. He was hard done by (no exploration of the reasons why his wife left him in first place).

"Affleck, rashly decides to take drastic measures to get the file back after SL Jackson yells at him for taking away his time. ..... A rational person would think that a bit of time to cool off would do wonders. Especially seeing SL Jackson was so calm and polite directly after the accident. That and maybe a explanation that without the file he'd be facing a jail sentence.

Also, being greatly worried about a possible jail sentence, why is he so willing to break the law even more severly and obviously? Affleck was STUPID in this case. Isn't he an intelligent lawyer wizened about the ways of the world?"

Thats a fair comment, and a clear plot flaw....but again it is the action Afleck needed and allowed sympathy to move to Jackson (after the initial Afleck sympathy).

"A note about Affleck's wife. What point was that dinner scene? Why was she so reasonable and supportive to Affleck despite being cheated on etc."

Because she was manipulative...her fathers pawn..I thought this was obvious..she supported because her family and reputation was at stake..the marriage was a convenience and seemed devoid of true love.


"Lastly, when all is over, SL Jackson is happily greeted by his ex-wife and kids just because Affleck spoke to her for 5 minutes. Sure, it explains a few things about why SL Jackson acted the way he did, but it doesn't take back the fact that he attempted murder, making him a dangerous criminal that shouldn't be near her kids. And if I remember correctly, didn't she accept SL Jackson's explanation at the jail but reject him because he is one to escalate chaos?"

Again here I truly believe that this was because we have two "likeable" bankable actors and there needs to be a happy ending for both. I agree with you that its a little peculiar that a 5 min (we assume its 5 mins) conversation changes her perception about her husband. Or maybe what was really happening at end was a preparedness to allow him to access to his children. We dont know what Afleck had said to her so perhaps he was very convincing.

Anyways thats my thoughts to your proposition

reply

"SL Jackson's character furthermore owned a pager, but no mobile phone to notify the court he was in a car accident. For a grown man in the 21st century not to have a cell is unlikely. This is a little too convenient in my opinion."

Your perspective on this seems skewed by class privilege. I am a 33-year-old adult male and just got my first cell phone. The only reason I needed it was because I am self-employed and need to get business calls wherever I am. Only two of my friends have cell phones. One of them has a pager and no cell phone. Jackson's character is a telemarketer selling insurance from a central office phone bank. He has little need for a cell phone in his life.

reply

ahh yes I suppose you're right. It's also due to national differences which I wasn't thinking of at the time.

The diffusion rate of mobile phones in the US is just over 50% of the total population. Europe, Asia and Australia are hovering around the 90% mark.

reply

Europe is indeed much cooler than the US. The monkeys in the Bush administration who promote Europe-bashing deserve nothing but scorn and outrage.

reply

[deleted]

BEN NEEDS TO CHANGE HIS VIEWS ON HOW HE READS SCRIPTS BECAUSE THIS MOVIE IS JUST A LONG LINE OF HORRIBLE MOVIES.

reply

This has undoubtedly been said to you millions of times before, but you can find the "caps lock" button between the "tab" button and the "shift" button. Press it. Congratulations, you can now type in lower case letters just like the rest of us.

You may now find that you have at least an ounce of credibility in your posts.

______
This is my BOOM stick!

reply