Watch Traveller For Free

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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.

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!

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.

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.