Shampoo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?)

Goldie Hawn is so good and so pretty. Warren Beatty plays the horniest man ever on an election day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not smart or old enough to understand the high brow political satire of the '60s during Nixon's rise and fall, but even as a simple sex comedy Shampoo does well enough. Goldie Hawn is extremely captivating. Carrie Fisher's role in this was jarring. Beatty is a sex maniac who still doesn't have any agency over his own life. Good music. Fav scene: Jack Warden wandering around the hippie party and is cool enough to want to jump into the hot tub.

My first disappointment from Hal Ashby, and I'll try to keep it my only one. I can see this may be an earnest film that intends to be as emotionally probing as the great work I've seen from this director elsewhere, but out of all the generally amiably written scenes with some rather good acting comes not a whole lot -- it's difficult to empathise with the pains of these characters because they aren't warranted and seem to bring some of it onto themselves. The upper class may enjoy this more.

Perfectly executed comedy, with a bunch of great performances filling the screen - Goldie Hawn, Julie Christie, Jack Warden, Lee Grant and Warren Beatty as the manwhore who towers over the whole thing. It's very much of its time and would probably make more sense to anyone who was there - sadly, I was not - but there's still a lot to love here. It's often hilarious.

This was dull and certainly not particularly funny, even though its marketed/categorised as a comedy. Its saucy at times, not excessively graphic and the characters were decidedly 2 dimensional (if that). It looked to me more like an episode of a soap opera of some sort, rather than a proper film as such. Its not really satirical or anything obvious like that. I didn't much see the point of it, frankly. Having said that, there were one or two somewhat amusing circumstances but their short lived.

Very funny. With a great cast and script, this is one of the better comedies from the 70's.

I loved every little thing about this film. Nasty, sexy, politically aware, funny, heartbreaking ... sort of like a Renoir for the 60's/70's . Beatty and Christie break my heart yet again. Every actor shines ... esp. Jack Warden, Lee Grant, even Goldie Hawn and Carrie Fisher ! Hal Ashby was a GOD !

Needs conditioner

Great fun. Pauline Kael: "This sex roundelay is set in a period as clearly defined as the jazz age [...] The director, Hal Ashby, has the deftness to keep us conscious of the whirring pleasures of the carnal-farce structure and yet to give it free play. This was the most virtuoso example of sophisticated, kaleidoscopic farce that American moviemakers had yet come up with; frivolous and funny, it carries a sense of heedless activity, of a craze of dissatisfaction."

Kind of an overly simple story but one that keeps you interested. Beatty plays a simple guy who just follows what he wants at the moment, like a dumb puppy, and it works. The film follows him throughout, as he's pulled this way and that way, which adds to the atmosphere of an otherwise simple film

Nothing in Ashby's Beatty vehicle screams or even whispers greatness but that's sort of the point of the main character. At any cost, he just wants to have a good time.

I approve!

bad title, good movie.

not enough carrie

62.500

Listless comic drama in which Warren Beatty plays an oversexed hairdresser who...kind of drifts around Hollywood social functions while the 1968 election plays out in the background? There isn't much of a discernible plot, and I felt nothing for any of the characters. Apparently it was cheaper to license Beatles music in the 1970s. Best scene involves a cameo by Carrie Fisher.

Ashby is the king of weird endings... of course, he holds up.

Shampoo is full of Ashby's constant good nature and his love of Los Angeles. Of course, this is the world before AIDS, which helps us see the picture now as a time capsule of the last great era of self-confidence, if not cockiness, in Hollywood. Seen today, it is startling just how free and easy pictures could be with sex then. If movies' real social purpose was to train us in sex, there must be the beginning of a suspicion that since 1975 we have been letting ourselves lose the habit.

Ends up a muddled highbrow political comedy in spite of having all the qualities expected from this kind of work, and from its stars and crew.

Ashby knows that the scene is vapid, but does he know that the drama is too?

took me a while to recognize Carrie Fisher...

Made by some of Hollywood's most accomplished figures of the time, but its rhythm isn't self-assured enough to achieve its big ideas. It feels like everyone took this as a holiday. It's not funny or emotional or pointed. It's not the opposite of any of those things either. It's just there. I'd like to say I enjoyed Lee Grant, Hawn, Christie, but all the women run together and none of the men seem to be motivated as much as acted upon.