ladybug2535 This film is a loving nod to the films of the late 70's--in cuts, setting and music choices (note the rotary phone, the answering machines, the women's lib and PMS comments, and of course Pam Grier herself--who looks fantastic). Filmed in 2000, it does an excellent job in depicting many of the characteristics of the 70's, though some of the tech and procedurals are of the 80's in a kind of mash-up. The dialogue was a high point with some pretty funny lines: "The only chemistry between you and me is a DNA test..." ; or this: "Did he have any enemies? That depends on how many wives talk in their sleep." It works because it's done perfectly straight, no sly wink at the audience. Many of the complaints were not justified; some of the acting was downright good--especially the interplay between the main characters, and in particular Pam Grier who plays her role with her usual panache. Rutger Hauer is an unusually charming Rutger Hauer which was a nice change, and his acting was better in this movie than I've seen in many of his others--I really don't get the criticism in this regard. Several of the extras/character actors feel flat or come across as slightly off-kilter stereotypes, but given what the film was trying to do, that may have been deliberate. The plot is pretty standard but plays logically with some interesting and rather unexpected twists, and an interesting big-pharma take. Unlike many of these movies, it actually does pay attention to little details--like a uniform giving them a "look" while they're talking (loudly) about their case in the hallway. Admittedly, there are a few--uh, unrealistic moments, but they were original and unexpected (ANY man will have a visceral reaction to one particular murder scene) and fit with the tone of the film, so in that sense, are forgivable. So, take this movie for what it is, an affectionate nod to the past, and overall an unexpected, enjoyable non-cerebral piece of entertainment.

Wizard-8 You would think that after starring in "Jackie Brown", Grier would have used the success of that movie to reinvigorate her career. Yet just a few years later, Grier found herself starring in this Canadian made-for-DVD cheapie. To be fair, none of the movie's shortcomings can be blamed on her - even in her 50s, Grier looks and sounds great, and brings in some spunk. But the rest of the movie is a bore. It's slow-moving, with some bizarre editing seemingly put in as an attempt to make it more stylish. I know that the idea of teaming Grier up with Rutger Hauer may sound interesting, but they spend less time together than you would probably think. There's a little chemistry in the few scenes they share together, but it's not enough to save the movie. The funk-sounding soundtrack is a nice touch, probably done to remind viewer's of Grier's '70s movies, but that too isn't enough to make this movie worth watching.

manuel-pestalozzi The movie clearly cashes in on Pam Grier's success with Jackie Brown. Again the main characters are two "old timers" who have their wild days of youth behind them. Instead of Robert Forster we have action veteran Rutger Hauer who seems to enjoy the part of a romantically inclined womanizing gynaecologist. Pam Grier as energetic police officer Wilder is great as always. This time she does not have a brother or a sister to protect but her two kids. Contrary to other comments I think the Grier character's troubles with her neighbours fit in well and help the story along. Grier and Hauer make a good, harmonious and quite likeable couple.Wilder is no masterpiece, it does not show any of Tarantino's sophistication. The story - Grier investigates the murders of young women, Hauer is at first the prime suspect - becomes somehow too drab and serious for this kind of movie which is more a comedy than a drama. However, there are some good scenes and good acting performances, especially Richard Robitaille as an ambitious, overexcited salesman for a pharmaceutical company. All in all I should say this is good, solid entertainment for people over age 35.

Zantara Xenophobe *This review contains miner spoilers*As time goes by, people look to the past decades and usually laugh. They laugh at the clothes that were worn, the lingo that was used, the music that was popular, and the dances that were performed. They also look (and often laugh) at the style of movies. Few decades seem to get more flak than the 70's (though there has been a recent surge of 80's bashing, something I am not very fond of since I liked the 80's). Cinema of the 70's pretty much belonged to gritty cop thrillers brought on by the likes of the Dirty Harry and Shaft and many of their clones. Some of these were good movies with things that make you chuckle in retrospect. However, the recent remake of `Shaft' should have taught us that making a throwback to the past set in the present is not a good idea and `Wilder,' made in the same year, is more proof.Few actresses can be associated with the 70's as much as Pam Grier, the title character of this movie. Detective Della Wilder and her partner, Harland Lee (Romano Orzari), are pretty tough cookies working the streets. They are good cops, despite Wilder's regular bending of the rules that gets her in hot water with her boss. They get assigned the case where a woman was strangled and her body about to be taken away when the killer was interrupted. The main suspect is a doctor (Rutger Hauer), the former lover of the victim. As Wilder, certain of the doctor's guilt, begins heavily interrogating him, a second murder occurs and evidence starts to show up that it is not the simple work of a serial killer. Instead, Wilder discovers that the two murders, along with numerous disappearances, are linked to an experimental drug administered by a pharmaceutical company, and that this company has some dangerous political connections.While Grier and the story are pretty good, there is a lot about `Wilder' I did not like. For one, the movie's twists aren't very exciting. A twist is revealed and it leaves very little affect on you. It is also strange how Wilder's tough persona warms up to Hauer's character's very blunt passes. There is also a really terrible, unneeded subplot involving Wilder's quarrelling with her rude and abusive neighbor. But the worst stuff about `Wilder' is Gibbon's 70's frame of mind. His style just isn't very fun to watch. He does things like pepper the whole movie with 70's-like music that feels incredibly wrong. He also does annoying transition tricks like freeze-framing the end moment of a scene for a few seconds before moving to the next scene. That's very awkward, but not quite as awkward as an editing trick of splicing different takes of the same scene together. It looks so disjointed and wrong, like no individual take was correct so they just meshed them together to try to make it look stylish. The worst moment of this occurs in the movie's worst scene within the worst subplot: Wilder has broken into her neighbors' apartment to console the battered wife while the drunken husband shouts at the both of them. As the goofy scene splicing is occurring, you can see things in the background change, like the busted-open door suddenly being closed! Even aside from all this, `Wilder' still isn't up to par because you lose patience with it by the second half. And with that feeling of being a flashback to the 70's, you start to realize not only why we laugh at the things of thirty years ago, but why those same things should be left forgotten. Zantara's score: 4 out of 10.