There's something going on here but what it is isn't exactly clear. Paul Schrader's muddled thriller benefits greatly from a very interesting Woody Harrelson performance along with a highly colorful supporting cast. Harrelson is a Washington DC society dandy who escorts ("walks") married women to various functions. He know all their secrets and where all the bodies are buried. When one doyenne (Kristin Scott Thomas) becomes embroiled in the murder case of a shifty lobbyist, Harrelson steps in and nearly takes the rap. Like the heroes in past Schrader films (LIGHT SLEEPER, American GIGOLO), Harrelson's character is deeply flawed and more than a little disinterested in his own fate. Harrelson plays his role as if channeling both Truman Capote AND Hercule Poirot! Schrader's script has a greatly paced first half but then all is rushed for a tidy completion. Still, the film is immensely watchable and full of many great lines of dialog ("never get between a friend and a firing squad"). Lauren Bacall is great as a grand old dame and Lily Tomlin, Ned Beatty and Marybeth Hurt are in it too.

There is an interesting premise and a good cast. Why is this movie so terribly boring? The story is predictable. Walker helps female friend but ends up taking heat until he is exonerated. High society doesn't prove to helpful.They needed a Dominic Dunne to write the story better.The pace is just way too slow. They could have cut half and hour at least. What a dismal job of directing. Woody Harrelson's slow drawl isn't Southern it's just moronic sounding. Lauren Bacall looks a bit too ancient here. Kristin Scott Thomas looks the part but sounds British.Don't bother with this dud. It's just a waste of a good cast.

Yes, this is an above average character driven film, with a fine performance by Woody Harrelson. However the plot is more than convoluted. It's as if the directors defined some interesting characters to illustrate how superficial friendship is in Washington DC and as an afterthought threw in a murder to spice up the story. The plot and the murder investigation is very secondary to the characters.As a side interest, Eleanor Roosevelt detested all the official posturing and protocols of the Washington government crowd. The role of the spouses (and most of them are women) of the senators and congressman is to serve at social functions and gatherings. This is what this film is about.

I, too, had my troubles with this film, but I will not rehash the plot nor evaluate the actors, all of whom were at the top of their form. What amazed me so much is that a film could trust the audience enough to let us infer what remained unsaid by the characters. This is something like a James novel in which nothing happens. Isabel (in Portrait of a Lady) sits and stares at a fire for a whole chapter. Nothing happens. Yet her fate is sealed by the time the fire has burned down. Of course, the modern movie-goer will find this boring and the film will provoke cries of 'worst film of the century.' But once I learned to trust the movie's reticence and pace, I found that I was able to follow a thought process that became a collaboration between the film- maker and myself. This is so rare in movies that it will invoke fury or yawns in those used to cheap thrills and pat plots. True, the plot in this film is almost nonexistent. But then this is not an ordinary movie.My collaboration with Schrader and Harrelson resulted in some wry reflections on my own life, on loyalty and disloyalty. And on the mistaken idea that manners and superficiality will be enough to mask "the horror and the boredom" of life.