Svolta pericolosa

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.