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.
