L'histoire se déroule à New York quand un jour, un jeune avocat et un homme d'affaires ont un petit accident de voiture sur Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive. Leur rage mutuelle au volant se trans... Tout lireL'histoire se déroule à New York quand un jour, un jeune avocat et un homme d'affaires ont un petit accident de voiture sur Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive. Leur rage mutuelle au volant se transforme en querelle.L'histoire se déroule à New York quand un jour, un jeune avocat et un homme d'affaires ont un petit accident de voiture sur Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive. Leur rage mutuelle au volant se transforme en querelle.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 7 nominations au total
- Mina Dunne
- (as Jennifer Dundas Lowe)
- Gina Gugliotta
- (as Lisa Leguillou)
Avis à la une
High real world stakes.
Until the last ten d*** minutes when Afleck becomes essentially a super hero and fixes all the consequences for Jackson, despite how clear it was made throughout that most of these things could not be fixed.
Such an intelligent story ruined by one of the most careless yet brazen Hollywood endings in history.
I know *why* they make Hollywood endings, but I strongly suspect anyone that sat through this disturbing tale could handle a real ending. This ending is tantamount to all the dead people in Alien or one of the Hannibal Lecter movies all being AOK at the end.
What I find interesting is that comments on this film tend to be regarding which side to take, with some saying Jackson is "vile" or Affleck is "selfish". And, really, that is part of the beauty of this movie -- we naturally want to pick a side, like one guy and dislike another. But they are both flawed people.
Affleck is selfish, cheats on his wife, cuts off a guy's credit, flees an accident... his only redeeming quality is he is the only non-corrupt member of a law firm, though that hardly makes up for his failings. Jackson has a terrible temper, breaks things, has little self-control and is an alcoholic. Sure, he wants to reunite with his kids, which is noble, but maybe he should not be able to. Even if he had received Affleck's insurance card, he still would have been late for court...
There are three main reasons why I checked out this movie: Samuel, L, Jackson. Needless to say, he's a terrific actor and worth seeing in whatever he does. He's one of my favorites, and he delivers another powerhouse performance, taking on a role somewhat different from his recent roles: he plays an average Joe. We're introduced to his character, Doyle Gibson, who's a very nice guy simply haunted by mistakes in his past, one being alcoholism, which led to a divorce. And now he's attending AA meetings and buying a house for his two kids, hoping he will attain custody of them. Ben Affleck is good and charismatic. I didn't sympathize as much with his character, but that doesn't make him an antagonist. Neither characters are saints, nor are they sinners. That's good, because it's never completely effective to include characters who are entirely sympathetic. They're both mature adults, but they resort to juvenile acts of revenge in hopes that they can undo what happened. Sydney Pollack is great, as Affleck's egotistical father-in-law, proving his talents in front of the camera are just as fine as his talents behind the camera. I wanted to see more of the beautiful Amanda Peet, but she only has approximately 7 minutes of screen time. So I'm guessing that topless scene I heard mentioned didn't make it to the final cut. Oh, well. William Hurt, who seems to do a movie every 5 years, unfortunately has a small, thankless role as an alcohol counselor.
The script is well-written, and the film is a lot more character-driven than ones of recent years. I loved that scene in the bar where Sam Jackson sits in a lonely bar, listening in on two white guys badmouthing Tiger Woods. He lashes back with a terrific monologue, and later ends up punching them out. Some directors would've cut that scene out, overly concerned about the film's pacing, but I'm glad this time that wasn't the case. However, the ending seems a little fake. It's just too happy for its own good. But that's the only element of the movie I found forced.
My score: 7 (out of 10)
Samuel L. Jackson was well appointed as Doyle Gipson, and portrays his part well. One character's next move to destroy the other makes compelling viewing, and we can actually feel some sympathy for them, as we see both their emotional and compassionate side.
The story flows well as we are drawn into Banek and Gipson's desire to cause pain and hurt, not giving any thought to others who maybe affected by what they are doing. Changing Lanes is not a violent film as such, it simply explores the aspects of revenge in what could be a true-to-life measure. This is what makes it an entertaining and gripping movie that proved a winner for myself, and should do for many other film fans.
What happens next would depend on the individuals involved and given the volatile nature of these individuals , it seems inevitable that one or both will blame the other for their problems that result from the collision and seek to strike back at the other to get revenge. This may sound immature and childish, but it is also frighteningly believable.
Most people may be very calm and rational most of the time, but when they believe that they have been provoked or wronged by another, reason and passion fly out the window and are replaced by anger, rage and throughts of revenge. Events quickly spiral out of control. Changing Lanes was very entertaining and very unpredictable in its depiction of the lengths that both characters go to in order to strike back at the other. Ben Affleck and Samuel Jackson give first rate performances.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesA day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, director Roger Michell had the World Trade Center towers digitally removed from the opening main title sequence in the film. In the DVD commentary, he admitted that it was a mistake to erase them, and make it appear as if they did not exist. During the re-editing of the film, Michell reinserted them as a tribute.
- GaffesWhen Gavin Lights the paper on fire and raises it to the sprinkler head, that type of sprinkler head would only discharge the water. No other heads would spray water. The reason for this is to minimize damage.
- Citations
Doyle Gipson: I hope you don't mind, but I was intrigued by your conversation. I just thought you were in advertising. So I want to give you my dream version of a Tiger Woods commercial, okay? There's this black guy on a golf course. And all these people are trying to get him to caddy for them, but he's not a caddy. He's just a guy trying to play a round of golf. And these guys give him a five-dollar bill and tell him to go the clubhouse and get them cigarettes and beer. So, off he goes, home, to his wife and to their little son, who he teaches to play golf. You see all the other little boys playing hopscotch while little Tiger practices on the putting green. You see all the other kids eating ice cream while Tiger practices hitting long balls in the rain while his father shows him how. And we fade up, to Tiger, winning four Grand Slams in a row, and becoming the greatest golfer to ever pick up a 9-iron. And we end on his father in the crowd, on the sidelines, and Tiger giving him the trophies. All because of a father's determination that no fat white man - like your fathers, probably - would ever send his son to the clubhouse for cigarettes and beer.
- Crédits fousThanks to the staff and Militia Force members and veterans at the Marcy Avenue Armory, Brooklyn, New York.
- Versions alternativesThere was an early review of the movie that contained a spoiler of the ending. The ending that was originally used involved Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson getting into a fist fight that leads onto the balcony. They talk about right and wrong and Affleck takes the file and tears it up and the movie fades to credits. This ending was most likely cut because test audiences did not like it. It will most likely appear on the DVD. Also a small clip shown in the TV ads shows Affleck and Jackson fighting on the balcony. This was part of the original ending which explains why it was cut.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Changing Lanes: The Writer's Perspective (2002)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Changing Lanes?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Fuera de control
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 45 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 66 818 548 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 17 128 062 $US
- 14 avr. 2002
- Montant brut mondial
- 94 935 764 $US
- Durée
- 1h 38min(98 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1