This is How Movies Should Be Made

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Okay middle aged version of a Beach Party film has tourist Tony Curtis visiting California and run off the road by Claudia Cardinale, who then takes him back to her place, where a French style bedroom farce ensures. These kooky 20 and 30 somethings encounter crazy Californian surfers, bodybuilders, skydivers, and other assorted kooks. The film is never boring, but it's also never all that funny or clever either. One of the positives for the film is a supporting role by Sharon Tate, who's gorgeous and again had a terrific screen presence, reminding us of of what a loss the world had with her murder. Overall, if you want a lightweight comedy to the pass the time (which you'll completely forget about once it's over), you could do worse than "Don't Make Waves."

Additional credits: Sky-diving sequence photographed by sky-diver Doyle Fields, helicopter cameraman Nelson Tyler, and Bob Buquor. Westrex Sound System.Copyright 16 May 1967 by Filmways, Inc. — Reynard Productions. Released through Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. New York opening at neighborhood theaters: 20 June 1967. U.K. release: 27 August 1967. Australian release: 4 January 1968. 8,694 feet. 97 minutes. Cut by M-G-M to 85 minutes in the U.K.SYNOPSIS: "A delicious spoof on life and love among the body- building cultists of Southern California." — M-G-M publicity.COMMENT: So this is the film where all the mysterious stills that M- G-M showered on reviewers showing a lot of mud sliding all over Robert Webber, came from. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't deserve any publicity. Whose fault! The original novel in its determinedly screwball narrative and equally maladroit characters? The heavy- handed direction? Or the seriously over-the-top enthusiasm of the actors?Whatever, the picture is swamped by tedious dialogue, seen-too-often characters and typically cornball TV situations. Even Edgar Bergen has a hard time making something of his thin material. A major problem is that all the characters are unsympathetic. Sharon Tate probably comes out of this mess best, though her part proves disappointingly small. Claudia Cardinale, on the other hand, looks as fat as her part. Whether the photography, her costumes, or she herself are to blame, who can tell?Mackendrick's stolidly hammer-and-chisel direction fails to generate audience interest or involvement. Given the jumpily episodic script with its ridiculous plot development, maybe that's no surprise. Go to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and become submerged! Other credits are likewise undistinguished. Production values likewise rate as very average, despite sky-dive and running-car stunt-work. Obvious miniatures and clumsy special effects also do not impress.

This film starts out very promising and had me laughing right away with its long chain reaction sequence of disasters. Carlo, in an unperturbed Tom Hanks manner, stops at a beautiful overlook on the California coast, watches a lady painter lose her temper at her easel, who then flings her painting off the cliff in disgust. Carlo then attempts to take a drink from a defective water fountain that shoots a powerful stream of water at his face. Then the lady drives off, but her fender hooks his VW Bug's bumper, causing his car to roll downhill. Then follows a series of humorous and futile attempts by Carlo to stop his car from rolling, the car finally goes over the cliff, crashes in front of both the lady and an oncoming bus, followed by Carlo rolling down the hill after it. During the ensuing argument with Laura, who is arguing vehemently in Italian, she lights a cigarette that ignites the spilled gasoline, causing Carlo's car to blow up. Carlo's clothes then catch on fire and he has to strip in public while a not-so-helpful bystander pours a bucket of water on his head instead of on his burning pants.After the great opening sequence, however, the film became a little odd. It was humorous, but the humor then had a hard edge to it, something like the style in "Up the Creek" (1984), especially when Carlo is forced to sleep on the beach by a nasty paramour, then suffers a realistic clunk in the head by a surfboard while swimming the next morning. Then the film gets kind of artsy, with slow motion and freeze frame scenes of Malibu in her swimsuit, jumping on a trampoline. It seems to want to turn into a teen beach party type flick then, with lots of scenes of surfers, swimsuits, bodybuilders, and The Byrds playing live, but doesn't quite go in that direction, either. Then it moves back into more hard-edged comedy with Carlo working as a swimming pool salesman, then there seems to be a tacked-on episode at the end with Carlo's house starting to slide down a hill during a rainstorm. When the house finally rolls and slides all the way down to the beach, the film then ends! Yes, the film is odd, but I like it! Although the fundamental problem was probably a poorly planned story, the high quality production caused this problem to manifest itself as a unique style, with hard-edged humor, a mixture of genres, a mixture of cultures, and an overall odd story structure. Technically the details are quite good (other than the slightly weak sliding house effects at the end). The photography is good (other than some grainy and mismatched footage of a little girl surfer), the Southern California coastal scenery is beautiful, the music is lively and good, and the '60s style interior decor is wonderfully retro to behold: tikis, a peacock chair, modern art paintings, an interesting bed with a chain net, wood-paneled offices, and so on.Watch this film if you like the styles and atmosphere of the late '60s, avoid it if you're looking for a clear-cut comedy, clear-cut beach party flick, or clear-cut artsy film.

This is one of my favorite movies about Los Angeles. It has everything.Gorgeous locations on the beach, stunningly beautiful actors, a brilliant and witty script full of hilarious, exageratted incidents which are nevertheless typical of LA.It is not only funny but engaging, the plot is interesting. It was even better the second time I saw it on the big screen, where it is best seen.I was totally captivated by this film.I find this film much wittier and funnier, for example, than "Some Like It Hot", also with Curtis, and I find Sharon Tate much sexier than Monroe in that film.The plot is a bit crazy but compeletely believable and consistent with itself and reality; as a comedy it falls in the exagerrated or surrealistic category, only slightly dark because of the various difficulties that beset the hero.Above all it is a brilliant comment on Los Angeles of the sixties and is still valid in the 2000's. An overlooked gem, a great cast, which may work best for those who have lived in LA.Another film like this, with good LA locations, less comedy more suspense, is "Into the Night".