The only thing that stood out for me after watching the movie was the name Vincent Chase. I found it interesting that Mark Walhberg the producer of Entourage worked with Vincent Chase the actor. Of course there is no photograph of Vincent Case anywhere The name was subsequently used by Adrian Grenier as Vincent Chase the lead role in Entourage.The movie was not bad and could have had a different female lead besides Julianna Margulies. Margulies was good but would have been better if she would have shed some of her clothes during the sex scenes with Bill Paxton to spice up the chemistry.

...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.

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.

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.