Shampoo (1975)

Stars	User	Rating
2	Henrik	65 _46th
The satire on late sixties sexual politics are sharp and funny. But the superficiality of it's underdeveloped characters seeps into the story that never gets truly engaging.
1	DavidKahane	90 _83rd
Beatty's first screenwriting credit and it's hard to avoid seeing a hefty dash of autobiography in the stressed Romeo he's polished up for himself. He's predictably terrific in the role, and there's an equally strong supporting performance by Jack Warden. The movie is filled with nice, seemingly offhand touches that flesh it out, give a sense of a whole set of conflicts, concerns and histories taking place outside the frame, a quality that perfectly suits the cerebral care of director Hal Ashby.
1	Filligan	63 _13th
This wants to be an aimless masterpiece of the 70s akin to FIVE EASY PIECES, but it shoots itself in both feet multiple times. Beatty isn't driven enough, so it's hard to get on his side; the script doesn't feel like it's working to conjure the late 60s, especially a political late 60s; the pacing is slow, scenes can be draining from lack of impetus, and the commentary is toothless at best.
1	Moribunny	50 _38th
I hate Warren Beatty with a passion, he radiates obnoxiousness and self-satisfaction and the idea of women being attracted to that creepy jerk just doesn't register with me at all. So that sort of ruined Shampoo for me. But it's not a BAD movie, I mean... Hal Ashby and Robert Towne have probably rescued it from sucking.
1	PeaceAnarchy	72 _32nd
Fun in a sitcom kind of way, where the silly situations and double crossings are amusing. Beatty, Christie and even Hawn are enjoyable to watch. Even so, it eventually turns melodramatic and frankly the characters aren't well developed to support it.
1	twincinema	70 _53rd
Warren Beatty stars in this biography about himself -- a dude who has sex with every woman he meets. He has a bad haircut for the entire film, so it kept me wondering if he actually was hot. This film's satire doesn't work. He becomes interested in Julie Christie's character solely, but I don't know why. However, this is still a fun romp.
1	ktappe	14 _5th
I feel certain this is one of those movies you had to "be there" to understand. I wasn't--I was only 7 when it came out and watched it decades later. I really, REALLY don't get why this was so acclaimed and famous. Maybe someone can explain it to me, but until then it gets a low, low rating.
1	WWallce4prez	70 _46th
I mean it's Hal Ashby and Robert Towne, so it can't be bad right? It isn't, but it isn't all that enjoyable. Towne's script pops with dialogue that probably didn't belong in the late 60s but sounds wonderful. The cast is great to look at, but their characters are devoid of any redeeming qualities. Even Carrie Fisher has an awful, awful mouth. Beatty is so obnoxious and whiney that he reminds of a 10-year-old that lives down the street. Except for all the sex stuff.
1	Yiannos	65 _59th
Inevitably dated satire remains a somewhat fascinating time capsule exploring the decadent drift that was becoming a feature of contemporary life. Towne/Beatty's script was a timely reflection on the failure of 60's idealism, yet they weren't able to shape it into a consistently engaging and insightful narrative on the problem. Beatty is very good as a clueless womanizer constantly sidetracked by his base desires, but the pace is sluggish and the humour is spotty.
1	NathanBates	60 _34th
Like a vacuous soap opera, this follows a hairdresser who is doing it with everyone in town, and the multiplicity finally catches up with him. Some funny moments, but it just wasn't my thing. (I must confess: Through the whole movie, I kept wondering, "Who does the hairdresser's hair?" as it had a weird Jim Morrison look to it. Maybe that was the 'do to go with frilly shirts?)

Average Percentile 45.11% from 355 Ratings