Anyone with knowledge of courts and the law will find the initial plot device absurd. If the original power of appointment was such an important and irreplaceable document, the firm partners should have had Atty. Gavin Banek go to court to file the document escorted with security guards. More realistically, they would have filed a motion with a certified copy of the document, and later file the original if necessary. That Gavin, knowing the document was irreplaceable nonetheless brings it out of the car to be inadvertently dropped is also quite silly. The other nonsense is that Gavin had to be on time at the hearing, or else, even after suffering the traffic accident. Having Gavin do other things on such a precarious day, like interview job candidates, makes no sense. That Gavin is one of the partners son-in-law further piles on the absurdity.Meanwhile, Doyle Gibson, while no lawyer, does some very stupid things of his own, like not cashing on the opportunity and picking up a computer in a bank and throwing it down to the floor (with no consequences). Later Gavin very tensely confronts the same officer, who seemingly not having learned his lesson, continues to behave like a jerk. I was expecting Gavin to throw down to the floor his newly installed computer too.Then we have Master Hacker, who can with just a name enter a man's banking and credit accounts and delete them all and declare him bankrupt, and later undo all these things, all in just minutes. He is a useful, convenient but totally unreal device. Why use him instead of hiring some goons to force Doyle to return the document, well, I guess the reason was that Gavin did not know any goons, only Master Hacker.Gavin gets panicky and activates the sprinklers in the office in order to access a file. Water flows in buckets for minutes while people are forced to evacuate and firemen rush in. Gavin returns later in the evening and the office seems OK, no signs of the deluge. Hell, even one of the interview boys is still around.Why then the 5 stars you may ask? The film seemed good intended. And contrary to others, I liked the denouement. A lot.

Gavin Banek (Ben Affleck) is a high power lawyer with a big case. Doyle Gipson (Samuel L. Jackson) is an insurance salesman in AA struggling with his divorce. Their worlds collide when they get into a car accident. Stress for time, Gavin runs off before they could exchange information but he drops an important file. Now Gavin needs Doyle's help to get the file back. Doyle isn't very cooperative since he couldn't get to divorce court and he lost his kids.These are not likable people. It's dark stuff. It's fill with anger and desperation. It's ugly and it's not a fun watch. Ben Affleck is basically a callous jerk who's losing his moral compass. Jackson is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. One unlikeable character is maybe enough, but two is too much to take. This movie bashes the audience with moral ugliness. It's heavy handed and that's the part that I dislike.

Changing Lanes is a fascinating thriller, all the more because it constantly makes you question what would've happened if a character said something in a different way, executed a plan differently, or if a character wasn't at the wrong place at the wrong time. It's held together by strong performances from two actors we already know always live up to their potential, and is often suspenseful thanks to the way the plot allows each character pretty much equal screen time.The film stars Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson. Affleck is Gavin Banek, an affluent New York City attorney, who is racing down the highway to file a power of appointment document to assure that he now owns the assets to a dead man's foundation because the man signed it over to Banek's firm before he died. Jackson is Doyle Gipson, a recovering alcoholic in a rush to attend the custody hearing of his two young children so his wife doesn't take them and move to Oregon. Banek and Gipson get into a small accident, resulting in Gipson bearing the most damages, with a bent bumper and a flat tire. Banek doesn't have time for the insurance card exchange game and writes Gipson a blank check. Gipson asks for a lift, but Banek tells him that he needs to be somewhere, never stopping to ask Gipson where exactly he needs to go. Banek drives away before telling Gipson, "better luck next time!" This exchange and accident is really no one's fault. Both men are in a hurry, both men have opposite but equally serious lives to attend to, and, had this been a normal day where they were each driving to work or to lunch even, the meet wouldn't have been as hectic or as rushed. When Banek arrives at the law firm, he is missing a crucial file in his power of appointment case that he believes he left with Gipson, and when Gipson arrives at his hearing - after walking in the rain - his twenty minute tardiness results in his wife getting the custody of the kids. Both men are now frustrated and angry at the circumstances and at each other. What follows is a game of one-upmanship between the two men, as Banek tries to get his file back, which Gipson now has possession of, and as Gipson tries to overcome urges to drink again and the fact that he just lost his two sons.This story wouldn't be half as good if Affleck and Jackson weren't such great screen actors. Both men portray stressed and conflicted to a great level of believability as they do not become overcome with petty revenge motives and senseless actions that are nothing but minor annoyances or ill-conceived, overdramatic kneejerks. The acts of revenge both men commit on each other are realistic and have the ability to scar each other the most, but never do they stretch the realms of believability. Affleck, who has spent years working with thrillers and action films, knows what he is doing in terms of allowing character to bleed through a caricature. Jackson does as well, and together, both men illustrate a biting rivalry that is underrated in contemporary thriller cinema as far as I'm concerned.Changing Lanes was directed by Roger Michell, who amplifies the stress in various scenes of the film. Consider when Banek and Gipson are racing down FDR Drive, trying to get to their desired destinations. Michell is careful to show the hectic qualities of the scene, the bumper-to-bumper traffic, the last-minute lane changes the may shave thirty seconds off your commute, etc. Michell captures it all and thus makes Changing Lanes an active viewing from a directorial standpoint. As if he didn't have enough strong talent to portray on screen with Jackson and Affleck occupying it, Michell works to make the film riveting in terms of camera shots and tension creation, while writers Chap Taylor and Michael Tolkin work on giving the film a realistic tone to the project.Starring: Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson. Directed by: Roger Michell.

"Sometimes God likes to put two guys in a paper bag and just let 'em rip." - Gavin Banek "Systems, not people, make society happen." - Michael King Roger Michell directs "Changing Lanes". The plot? Samuel L. Jackson plays Doyle Gipson, an African American insurance salesman who's struggling with a divorce, AA meetings, financial problems and much stress. His car collides with Gavin Banek, played by Ben Affleck, who works for a law firm. Gipson is a man of integrity. A man who wants to do right by everyone. Banek, in contrast, is a wealthy shark routinely asked to do morally questionable deeds for his company. The duo's collision thus results in a sort of heated, class conflict. Unfolding over 24 hours, we watch as the couple lock horns, engage in battle, and attempt to ruin each other's lives.Despite some resemblance to "Falling Down", "Changing Lanes" is a refreshingly old fashioned film, feeling like some noir potboiler or race-relations thriller from the 1950s, or perhaps even something Stanley Kramer (vomit) may have directed. It touches upon white entitlement, the psychic scars of disrespect, the dignity and depravity of human beings, and the importance of responsibility and responsible individual actions, but is smart enough to wrap this all up in thriller dynamics. Like most big studio films concerned with the nature of morality (our heroes cycle through temptation, redemption, anger, chaos and reflection), however, things are kept strictly on the level of personal, individual ethics. The systemic issues which make Gipson and Banek's lessons void and unworkable, are ignored.Michell would direct the truly offencive "Morning Glory" some years later.7.9/10 – Worth one viewing.