Traveller (1997) Online

This could have been an interesting movie but it didn't live up to its promise. For one, the "traveller" culture of itinerant Irish grifters is explored very sketchily, if at all. The violent climax seems like an import from a totally different kind of movie. The only really entertaining scam was the one that Bokky and Pat pull on Jean, the bartender Bokky ends up falling for. The rest were either so simple as to be dull (the phony sealant, the trailers) or so complex you couldn't follow them (the scam involving the Turks). There are much better movies about con men; "House of Games" is probably my favorite.

The acting alone makes "Traveller" worth watching. Bill Paxton is very good as Bokky, a likeable rogue with a sincere face and an awakening conscience, and he credibly conveys his growing love for Jean; his anguish when he has unwittingly put her in grave danger is palpably and painfully real. Julianne Margulies brings warmth and spunk to her potrayal of Jean, and the romantic chemistry between her and Paxton is undeniable. Mark Wahlberg, in one of his first "real" roles, projects just the right mix of boyish vulnerability, charm (in the scenes where he's romancing Kate, the clan boss's daughter), and cool-dude moxie. As the old grifter "Double D," James Gammon is a lot of fun to watch whenever he's onscreen.

Unfortunately, the screenplay doesn't do enough to develop the two main characters. For instance, Bokky seems to have a good heart; yet he's been conning people for years (not even siphoning some extra cash from rich people for whom it's merely a drop in the bucket, but cheating poor and ignorant folk -- in some cases, cheating them out of their life's savings), and somehow it never bothered him until he met Jean. That doesn't make much sense. As for Pat, I think the film should have told us more about his life "on the outside." We gather that he's poor and doesn't have too many opportunities (though he's dressed nicely enough when he arrives for his father's burial), but it's still hard to understand exactly why he's so eager to be a part of the "family" and to join a lifestyle in which his choices, even about things as basic as whom to marry, will be severely restricted, or why he thinks it's so terrible that Bokky risks being excommunicated from the Travellers. (Bokky's on-the-road life certainly doesn't look like being "on top of the world" to me.) Pat's relationship with Kate is treated as an afterthought, maybe a plot device to give him a reason to come back to the Travellers camp.

Because of these flaws, the character development that could have been the strongest part of this movie never really gels. The shaky plot structure, especially toward the end, compounds the problems.

After reviewing the comments found here, I find myself wondering if the film I've seen four or five times could possibly be the same one described in several of the reviews here. "Thinly disguised agendas, unrealistic plot lines, uncertain performances." I don't understand the issues here.

Traveller is a fine movie, worthy of much wider exposure than it ever received. The performances by Paxton, Marguiles and Wahlberg are all top notch, and rate among the finest work I've seen any of the three produce. James Gammon's performance is a tremendous character piece and even those who don't like "Traveller" should watch that with spellbound interest. (Ebert's Stanton-Walsh rule should apply here.) The script could use a little tightening in places it's true. And I will agree that I would have liked to see more of the back woods life, but that's a selfish interest and not something that was integral to the success of the film. We see that old home life in every shade of Paxton's performance. He carries it with him constantly, only letting go of it in brief moments with Marguiles.

Wahlberg's performance is described elsewhere as "uncertain." In my mind, that's the point. Pat is uncertain. That's the performance. That's the character. That's acting. He never knows where he stands. He rarely if ever knows what he wants, let alone what he'll be able to possess.

This movie tries to be a lot of things. And it succeeds in most. It is a road movie, a romance, a con, a story of failed redemption and more. It's a North Carolinian mafia movie. Sure it's not "The Godfather." But it ain't "Mobsters" either.

"Traveller" boasts nothing spectacular (unless you count James Gammons blowing everyone off the screen in every scene he's in), but is smart little movie and a fine choice for a lazy Sunday afternoon. Bill Paxton, taking a break from blockbusters like "Twister" and "Titanic," stars and executive produced this slice-of-life drama, and he's solid as a member of a quaint Irish, gypsy-like nomadic group that cheats people out of money. Mark Wahlberg, who is becoming one of the finest young actors working today, plays his protege, and Gammons comes along as an outsider who helps the pair out on a gig. Julianna Marguiles of "ER" also shows up as Paxton's love interest. The acting is uniformly fine, the cheating schemes are twisty and unpredictable, and the story is nicely touching. Though not without some ordinary moments (Wahlberg's romance wastes time, why the ultra-violent ending?), this is a fine sleeper of a film.

The smooth scams and chemistry between the actors in this film work well. The rest, not so much. I'm a sucker for movies about con-men, and the tricks they pull in this movie seem both original and believable. But despite fine acting and an interesting backdrop, you just keep getting the feeling that a lot of stuff was thrown together while the script was being written. Both of the quasi-romances are hard to buy, and the ending seems like a scene from the "Death Wish" series tacked onto a character study. Probably worth checking out, but not a great movie.

Traveller doesn't really know what it wants to do. It ends up as a strange mix of road drama and romance, but whatever it's doing, it works. Paxton provides a creditable performance as the experienced Traveller, and Margulies shines in her role as Jean; their relationship is nicely understated, and well played. However, it's Wahlberg who provides the uncertainty in this movie - he doesn't really know how he is playing his character. As for the much criticised turn to violence in the finale, it is indeed unexpected, but not altogether unwelcome and it makes for an interesting climax. The film is very good, but it could so easily have been excellent.

To satisfy one reviewer's curiosity: These people do exist, or at least clans like them exist. There is a well-known Scottish clan who are con artists, doing roofing jobs, driveway sealing, etc. that are no good. They gather yearly in Cincinnati, OH at which time the local media warn people to beware of them and their "work". Their graves are marked by rather gaudy headstones and monuments in Cincinati's Spring Grove Cemetery. The cemetery has been the resting place of prominent cincinnati families since the 19th century. I first was told of these people (perhaps the name of the clan is MacDonald) when I was shown the cemetery many years ago. Their red granite monuments stuck out like sore thumbs amongst the more sedate ones of proper Cincinnatians. As to whether an Irish clan of travellers exists, I do not know, but the Scottish clan does. As to the movie--Nice, small film. Nice work by Bill Paxton and Mark Wahlberg.

This was totally interesting to watch, but it needed two things: (1) to be based in some kind of reality; (2) to have a conclusion for the characters. In the picture, you see Marky Mark getting into a romance with the daughter of the capo di capos, but absolutely nothing comes of it. And what happens to Bill Paxton's girlfriend. And even the scheme for the counterfeit bills, which should have been crystal clear, did not hold together.

And who are these people? I get the feeling that the filmmakers were trying not to call them gypsies or roma--fear of offending an ethnic group. Rather, they seemed to be some combination of Irish and Italian. But the movie would make more sense if it were clearly grounded in a real group of people.

But, that said, I still enjoyed every minute of it. It just ended too soon.

...you'll do far better enjoying Guy Ritchie's "Snatch" in which Brad Pitt's Mickey brings that entire Celtic sub-culture to near preternatural perfection. It's also a much better movie. I feel that Traveler wastes so much of its potential impact with lame ripoff schemes and a confusing sense of who and what the Travelers actually are. Also, setting it in America is like setting a movie about Eskimo life (not that I'm comparing Travelers to Alaskan natives by any means) in New Orleans.

North Carolina?

Paxton and Marky Mark are talented performers but this film, while certainly watchable, doesn't really seem to get to the point.

A band of irish gypsies take advantage of decent people as well as running a scam on a trio of other con artists. This picture seemed to be applauding stealing, whoredom, and loose morals in front of children, plus it contained a jab at handguns which appeared to be thrown in as an afterthought. Subtle, but not to well hidden subliminals, pushed the agenda of the producer in a thinly disguised movie. An ok film.

Films about con men can go a lot of ways. They can be intelligent with a worthwhile and earned payoff (2004's Criminal), they can be hollow, nonsensical, all flourish and no gravity (2003's Confidence) or deviate any which way from these examples. Traveller takes the quaint indie route, meaning I'm probably the sole person on the planet who has even heard of it, despite Marky Mark Whalberg appearing on one of the starring roles. It's a shame because this is a bona fide gem, a low key little charmer with a roguish lead performance from Bill Paxton, a plot that gets cleverer the more you ruminate on it afterwards, and an easygoing style to it. Marky Mark plays Pat, a young man descended from Irish 'travellers', who are essentially gypsy hustlers and live as such in a sleepy North Carolina community. Pat wants to reconnect with his roots, but his kinfolk are a tribal bunch who don't really fancy outsiders, however distantly related they may be. Cousin Bokky (Paxton) is the only one to take him under his wing, showing the ropes of a very specific, time honoured idiosyncratic lifestyle. Pat is young, cocky and sticks out like a sore thumb in Bokky's world, who himself is weathered and moves about with ease and experience, slowed down by the dynamic which his young prodigy presents, and also looking for a way out of this life, and even romance with gorgeous Julianna Margulies. As light as these proceedings are, the film doesn't fail to show the give dangers that being a con man puts them face to face with. It's all fun and games until... well until it isn't, and we get to see some of that ugliness rear it's head, for without it there would be no stakes. Joining them is grizzled and now deceased character actor James Gammon, playing a salty veteran grifter who crosses their paths more than a few times, causing as much trouble in the process. I've not a clue how close to real life fact and tradition this film gets, but I imagine fairly on the nose, as it just has that notion that it knows what it's doing, it's researched, capable, and does it all with ease and enjoyment.

Longtime Clint Eastwood cinematographer Jack N. Green made his directorial debut with this combination of character study and drama. It tells the story of modern day gypsy types (of Irish descent) such as "Bokky" (Bill Paxton). Guys like Bokky basically make their living by scamming people; in the films' opening minutes, Bokky is pretending to fix a homeowners' driveway. Into their lives comes Pat (Mark Wahlberg), whose father had left the clan to get married. Therefore, Pat's not exactly welcomed by these people, but Bokky decides to take Pat under his wing. Trouble brews for our unlikely hero when, after taking pity on and falling in love with a "mark" (Julianna Margulies), he starts developing a set of scruples.

Some people might find the ugliness of the climax a little hard to take, but it doesn't exactly come out of left field. Bokky and company had to know that there would be repercussions for their actions. Still, this is a reasonably well made and reasonably well told story, written with heart by Jim McGlynn and directed with efficiency by Green. The filmmakers do keep you watching as things develop, even if, overall, there's a sense of predictability to the scenario. The soundtrack - both the score by Andy Paley and the selection of tunes - is pleasing to listen to. The pacing is generally adequate, with a fairly straightforward narrative.

The acting is the most effective component. Paxton delivers a typically engaging performance, while Margulies is appealing as his love interest. Wahlberg is fine as the neophyte who takes a bit of time to ease into the art of scamming. Veterans like Rance Howard, Luke Askew, and Jo Ann Pflug are all solid in supporting roles. It's particularly amusing to see Rance and his late wife Jean, the parents of Ron H., both making appearances. But the person who walks away with the film is a very funny and lively James Gammon as "outlaw Gypsy" Double D, constantly popping up in Bokky's life and urging him to join in on a con job.

Other than Gammons' performance, there's nothing really exceptional here, but "Traveller" does entertain for 100 minutes.

Seven out of 10.

The only thing that stood out for me after watching the movie was the name Vincent Chase. I found it interesting that Mark Walhberg the producer of Entourage worked with Vincent Chase the actor. Of course there is no photograph of Vincent Case anywhere The name was subsequently used by Adrian Grenier as Vincent Chase the lead role in Entourage.

The movie was not bad and could have had a different female lead besides Julianna Margulies. Margulies was good but would have been better if she would have shed some of her clothes during the sex scenes with Bill Paxton to spice up the chemistry.

I'm only 15 minutes into the movie and already mad at the writers. Having watched 4 seasons of American Gypsies, My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding (UK and US versions), and other documentaries on real gypsies, I know that most gypsies are NOT crooks, cheats, swindlers, grifters, scammers, and so on. All this movie is doing is perpetuating negative, damaging stereotypes about this American subculture with a rich, long, and interesting history. Had the writers stuck to the truth about Gypsy culture, the story would be much, much better.

Although I am not a gypsy, I believe that every culture or group of people has a right to be portrayed accurately, based on fact and not supposition. This is why I am so upset by this film. Already, I have considered changing the channel (I'm watching it on Showtime), but I've decided to stick it out and see just how I feel after seeing the complete story.

Down with prejudice, up with truth!