Traveller

I saw this first time in the 90's. Now seeing it again some 20 years later, I didn't remember much of it, from back then. It's good. I saw it in 1080p and that was nice on the 75". It was a fun 100 minutes. I do a lot of re-viewing of old movies, now under covid-19 and I just stumbled upon this by chance.

These scams were typical in the early 2000's. From what I remember. They scammed everybody, especially old people. Thankfully we are a bit more updated today. The movie stands the wear and tear of time passed by. If you haven't seen it, then enjoy this good classic Wahlberg Paxton movie. 7/10

Interesting premise and concept about con-men seemingly conning their way through different families in order of paying off depts. This may be worth the watch for fans of the cast or though enjoying watching con-men work.

Although nothing completely memorable, the story isn't too bad. There are of course it's cliches and some scenes of predictability, though also some rather twists. It is quite a standard film but enjoyable at times to say the least.

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.

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.

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.