6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Has good moments and a certain charm, ultimately falls apart, 13 May 2000
Author:
Cathy Young (cathyyoung63@aol.com) from Middletown, NJ
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.
5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Taut interesting character study, 16 August 1998
Author:
Ed-17 from England
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.
"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.
1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- If you're interested in the Travelers..., 7 December 2007
Author:
(potshotk@aol.com) from Las Vegas, NV
...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.
Sometimes wonder if I saw the same film, 4 April 2006
Author:
NoLeoNo
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.
2 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- Interesting movie, but ..., 9 October 1999
Author:
frznnrth from Alaska
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.
2 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Riveting, but leaves you dry, 11 August 2001
Author:
Alan Jacobs (ajacobs@nyc.rr.com) from Greenwich Village, NY
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.
1 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- Excellent small film about gypsy-like con artists., 7 March 2004
Author:
(ctimberl@hotmail.com) from Bakersfield, CA
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.
4 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :- degenerates abound in this con job, 20 July 1999
Author:
helpless_dancer from Broken Bow, Oklahoma
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.
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summaryplot synopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglinestrailers and videospostersphoto galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
Traveller (1997)
6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Has good moments and a certain charm, ultimately falls apart, 13 May 2000
Author: Cathy Young (cathyyoung63@aol.com) from Middletown, NJ
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.
5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-

Taut interesting character study, 16 August 1998
Author: Ed-17 from England
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.
4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-

Nice character study, 13 October 1998
Author: Mark Miazga (miazgama@pilot.msu.edu)
"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.
1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-

If you're interested in the Travelers..., 7 December 2007
Author: (potshotk@aol.com) from Las Vegas, NV
...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.
Sometimes wonder if I saw the same film, 4 April 2006

Author: NoLeoNo
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.
2 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting movie, but ..., 9 October 1999
Author: frznnrth from Alaska
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.
2 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-

Riveting, but leaves you dry, 11 August 2001
Author: Alan Jacobs (ajacobs@nyc.rr.com) from Greenwich Village, NY
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.
1 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent small film about gypsy-like con artists., 7 March 2004
Author: (ctimberl@hotmail.com) from Bakersfield, CA
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.
4 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-

degenerates abound in this con job, 20 July 1999
Author: helpless_dancer from Broken Bow, Oklahoma
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.
Add another comment
Related Links