VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

MBunge If you took a video camera, surgically attached it to the head of a feral dog and let it wander around for 90 minutes, then shot the dog and retrieved the camera, the unedited footage would look more professional and be more entertaining than this film. I'm actually reluctant to criticize A New Wave because it's so bluntly atrocious in even the most basic elements of filmmaking that it makes me suspect writer/director Jason Carvey is mentally handicapped. It's not appropriate to call someone a moron when that's a medically accurate description of their mental faculties. For the sake of this review, however, I'll make the dubious assumption that Carvey's brain is fully functional and free of any disease or defect.It's a little hard to describe the plot of A New Wave. It's so haphazardly put together and poorly executed that it makes Frankenstein's Monster look like Michelangelo's David. But here goes. Desmond (Andrew Keegan) is a whiny little bitch who hates his job as a bank teller so much he can't even enjoy having a smokin' hot college babe like Julie (Lacey Chabert) as a girlfriend. He wants to be a painter and feels the bank job is crushing his underdeveloped soul. Desmond is the sort of pathetic man-child that constantly belittles himself and everything he does, forcing Julie to repeatedly tell him how wonderful he is. Rather than recognize what an annoying loser Desmond is, this film casts him as the put upon everyman which whom the audience is supposed to sympathize.Desmond is so unhappy he agrees to go along with a plan to rob the bank where he works. The robbery is the brainchild of Desmond's friend Gideon (John Krasinski), who is one of those poorly written characters that get dissected in screen writing classes as examples of what you're not supposed to do. He's supposed to be this sardonic hipster rebel but everything about him is so over the top and exaggerated that he seems more like an escaped mental patient. A third friend is also in on the plot. Rupert (Dean Edwards) is a black guy who is British because…well, the British Black Guy has become kind of a stock character in contemporary films. I guess writer/director Carvey opened up the Big Book of Movie Clichés at random and got the page titled "Black Guy, British".After everything is set up, there's really not much plot that follows. Our prospectively criminal trio needs guns, so they wind up spending the evening with Fabio's evil twin. That causes Desmond to miss a date with Julie and she gets mugged, though she ends up looking more like she got a case of pink eye. There's a weird scene that plays like an homage to Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Gideon is Ferris, Desmond is Cameron and Julie is Sloan. And a monkey wrench gets thrown in the robbery plans when the chance to succeed as a painter basically falls out of the sky and hits Desmond right in the nuts. There's also some stuff with Julie's parents that makes so little sense, I can't believe writer/director Carvey ever had a mother and father of his own. He must have been orphaned as an infant and then raised by some kindly snails.There is one marginally clever idea present in A New Wave. Gideon plans out the bank robbery like he was writing a screenplay and we get to see his "movie" acted out in a fantasy sequence that's almost but not quite funny. There's also one honest laugh when the robbery occurs and Gideon is first confronted with how reality is differing from his imagination. Outside of those two things, this movie is punishingly stupid and viciously unfunny.Rising above all of its other flaws, A New Wave riddled with technically inept filmmaking that can't be ignored. I'm not just talking about things like poor sound quality or the movie being out of focus on more than one occasion. I'm talking about shots that are framed so poorly you end up with one character's head talking to another character crotch. I'm talking about shots that look like they were filmed by a cameraman who was either drunk or had a severe inner ear problem. There's no rhyme or reason to anything the camera does in this film. It's as if writer/director Carvey had a 20 sided die, like from Dungeons and Dragons, where each face of the die indicated a different direction and Carver would just roll the die every 30 seconds, moving the camera in whatever direction came up. And if you think I'm blowing Carvey's directorial incompetence out of proportion, consider this. There's a scene where Desmond and Gideon are having a conversation while peeing on the side of a building. When they finish urinating, they don't move away and continue their discussion. No, they lean right up against the spots on the wall where they just relieved themselves and keep talking.Movies like A New Wave are clear evidence of just how much desperation infests the film industry. This script is so terrible it would attract bomb-sniffing dogs and anyone who looked at the footage from the first day of filming could have seen that a bomb-sniffing dog would have been a better director than Jason Carvey. Yet someone still forked over a significant amount of money to make this film because that's how badly they wanted to be part of show business. The cast and crew took jobs on this project because that's how badly they needed the work. And this thing got burned onto DVDs and shipped all over the country because that's how much pressure there is to try and make money off of any and every worthless cinematic fiasco.

kaden milliren to me this movie was pretty good if you don't count how low budget it was. yes the editing was bad and the cameras weren't great and some of the actors weren't very good either, but i do think that it had a good script, idea, and Lacey and john both did a very good job in my opinion. it had a great soundtrack with music from army of me and chamberlain. had a bigger company picked up this movie i really do believe it could have been very good. i tip my hat to john for making me laugh, and Lacey for being super attractive as well as their acting. but was their any significance to the end? i re watched it time and time again to see if i was missing something but i couldn't figure it out.

wangotango I have to say, Krasinski is the only reason I even watched this film. He is good. However, everything else about this film is so far below average that it's not worth the time and effort spent viewing this film.This film has loads of technical/aesthetic issues: namely, shot selections, framing, camera movements within monologue sequences, extremely bad editing (probably due to the total lack of fluidity in and between shots), and overall terrible acting (except for Krasinski).It was far too theatrical (in acting and presentation) to develop any sort of suspenseful moment in this film...which is surprising, because it's all about a bank robbery, which should be at least somewhat exciting.How does a film this bad get made, and then released, AND THEN distributed?Kind of reminds me of a C- film student's thesis project, probably not even that good though.

falconpunch So I got this from the rental store where I work before it was released (release is 8/21), just watched it today, and now I'm speechless. They could have had a decent movie here, but they screwed it up in some painfully obvious ways.First of all, the parts with John Krasinski were funny, and are the only reason I gave it above a 3, but they are broken up by bad acting and terrible "serious" reflections on life between the main character (Andrew Keegan) and his girlfriend (the annoying Lacy Chabert). It would have been much, much better as a straight comedy ala Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.I wanted to like it, because I think Krasinski is funny and want to see him do well. The story wasn't bad either, just not very original. But the directing (and a lot of the acting) was terrible. I swear they had trouble keeping peoples faces in the shot and just went with it anyway.Their carelessness is showcased when the gun expert corrects another character and says that a "Dirty Harry" gun is not a .357 magnum but a .45 (it was, as everyone knows, a .44 magnum).So see this if you 1- really like John Krasinski 2- like to watch low-budget (and poorly-directed) movies or 3- Have too much time on your hands (this is me!)