Shampoo - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Shampoo Reviews

Page 1 of 15
August 24, 2017
Story about a male hairdresser whose a major ladies man and goes around the entire film trying to please women. Girls love him because in addition to being good in bed, he listens to what they have to say. But of course they won't marry him because he has no money. Relevant today as it was 42 years ago. Also very funny.
½ June 2, 2017
There's a downbeat seventies feel to Shampoo, even as it seems to be a satire on the sexual mores of the Beverly Hills set. Warren Beatty is the hairdresser who sleeps with all of his clients ("heads") despite stringing along Goldie Hawn who really loves him (maybe). But Beatty's character is so empty we never get inside him, even as he can't make up his mind about whether he should commit to Julie Christie, who enters back into his life as the mistress of the businessman husband (Jack Warner) of one of his clients (Best Supporting Oscar winner Lee Grant). Beatty is so empty that he defeats the film's attempt to make this a character study, although emptiness may be the focus of screenplay (by Chinatown's Robert Towne). The action occurs on the night of Nixon's election in 1968, sounding another bum note in the apparent tribute to hedonism (and narcissism) that was soon to come crashing down. (And poor Julie Christie has a few crude scenes that just don't feel right). Still, that is one hell of a party (with Beatles, Hendrix, Buffalo Springfield soundtrack) they seemed to be having in 1968. Unfortunately, no one here has a sense of what they really want and the film drifts as they attempt to find out. I expected more from director Hal Ashby and this team.
November 2, 2016
Uncertain of expectations for subject matter, Shampoo caught my eye simply for being another contribution from Warren Beatty.

Set on election day 1969, Shampoo is clearly a film with importance resting on the virtues of its contemporary culture. The story is an exploration of sexual politics within the social mores of an American society in an era of counterculture. In following this path, Shampoo relies on a simplistic narrative packed with many arbitrary characters who contribute to a single narrative that occurs over a period of 24 hours. As a result, the film is essentially like a day in the life of upper-middle class culture of 1969. Perhaps it was valid back in the day of its original release and its satire was more prominent, but by modern standards this is much more difficult to see. Essentially nothing happens in Shampoo; none of the characters are given that much meaning or anything interesting to say and the film fails to delve beneath the surface of their shallow ideals. All I gathered from Shampoo was that changing times in the 1960's had brought upon a new age of vanity in the American people, and perhaps that is where the satirical edge comes into play. But since the film focuses on an unlikable protagonist who is shallow in every sense of the word, we end up with a film as vain as the people it chronicles. Shampoo is a film which plods along at a ridiculously slow pace with nothing going on until its nihilistic climax where all the characters are essentially left unsatisfied. But since there is no satisfying people as materialistic and shallow as the characters in Shampoo, it's hard to care at all.
Since Shampoo comes with such a basic story, there is no room for experimentation of style with the film. Hal Ashby isn't one to challenge stylistic guidelines all that often, but Shampoo is so overtly basic that it unfolds like a stage production which somehow managed to film itself. Everything in Shampoo just happens without ever having a spark of real feeling to it, making for a grim and lifeless experience. And for Robert Towne who wrote the unforgettable screenplay to Chinatown (1974) to churn out this misfire the following year is a huge step down. Shampoo is not a film which has aged well whatsoever and is likely to just keep decreasing in critical recognition over time.
The general concept from Shampoo is not much of a distinctive one. The Australian equivalent of Shampoo would be Don's Party (1976) which came out the following year and occurred entirely within a short period on the Australian election night the same year. Don's Party succeeded because its characters were constantly engaged in discussion which made audiences aware of what they were thinking. We saw great topics touched upon such as politics and sexuality, while the film had a great sense of humour the entire time which made it hilarious. Shampoo is a film where audiences are expected to just know what the characters think and not rely on them to convey it to us. While we're trying to figure out what it all means, we have to deal with a slow pace and little humour to support it. Shampoo's supposed satire is burdened by a genuine lack of energy which makes it hard to find anything in the film funny whatsoever.
The British equivalent of Shampoo would be Alfie (1966). Though Alfie was far more comically oriented, it was far more insightful about the protagonist's sexual obsessions. It wasn't as analytical of the contemporary society that it was set in, but we actually had a sense that the characters had identity to them. There were actual characters rather than simple representations of contemporary ideals, and the problem with Shampoo is largely that it supplements the former with the latter.
Since characterization is such a weak point of Shampoo, the natural charms of the cast are all that is left to compensate for this. But with the glory days of these cast members being long before the age we are watching this film in today, the overall effect is mediocre.
I normally find a lot to enjoy with performances given by Warren Beatty, but Shampoo is one where he lets everybody down by presenting us with an exceedingly dull vanity project. Given his status as a Hollywood lothario, it is very befitting that he portrays such a character in Shampoo. It also means that we are presented with a self-obsessed and unlikable protagonist. George Roudy cuts hair for people and has sex with women, and that's all he essentially does the entire film. He never stops to think or actually provide anything interesting to say so that audiences may sympathise with him on any level. He's just a douche, and he symbolizes everything wrong with the film. Warren Beatty plays the role well enough with his natural charisma, but there is never a sense of humanity to him. And the fact that he couldn't write himself a better character is inexplicable.
Some cast members such as Julie Christie proceeded to have strong careers in the aftermath of Shampoo, but cast members such as Jack Warden and Lee Grant remain difficult to remember as they fail to stand out any more than the rest of the cast. Given that Lee Grant actually won an Academy Award for her role, the lack of distinction is rather strange.
Goldie Hawn is the one cast member I really enjoyed in Shampoo. Bereft of a strong character but instinctive with her sweet charm and vulnerability, Goldie Hawn manages to offer audiences someone to sympathise for simply because of her kind-hearted nature. And it's nice to see the appearance of a young Carrie Fisher in the days before she became Princess Leia.

Shampoo is a low point in the careers of Hal Ashby and Warren Beatty; it is a film with nothing to say and nobody who cares enough to say it, leaving its supposed satirical edge and social commentary to get lost amid the lack of story, characters or humour.
October 18, 2016
Another lost review. It's entertaining, but not something to write home about being based around a love affairs with more than six people. They were also intent on a subtle mocking the Nixon GOP throughout.
May 21, 2016
A great comedy with great acting. I loved it!
Super Reviewer
February 9, 2016
Sort of an anti-nostalgia piece . . . trading romantic notions about the late 60s for icy cynicism and shallow characters. Which represents a rarely seen perspective about that decade.
January 4, 2016
Oddly this is #47 on AFI's Top 100 Laughs list because this is an extremely dark film. Granted the central party scenes are quite funny at times, but this is hardly a comedy.
September 19, 2015
It's a nice dramady with a nice balance of comedy and drama with great performances from Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn.
May 6, 2015
I'll take a Hal Ashby film over many films I've seen over the years. Shampoo is a fine film, but one that's certainly dated due to not just its style but its subject matter and underlying themes. Everybody gives terrific performances, and the film ends realistically, as opposed to a lesser film that might have gone with something much happier.
½ February 16, 2015
This pointed character study of a man whore was waaaaaaaaay ahead of its' time in terms of realistic depictions of sex, drugs, and language, but the shock value is limited by today's standards making the film not quite as potent to new viewers as it likely was in the time of its' premiere.
½ January 18, 2015
Entre comedia y romance un divertido film que tuvo mucho xito en el año de su estreno , destacan las actuaciones secundarias de Lee Grant y Jack Warden.
September 6, 2014
Actually enjoyed this :)
April 25, 2014
One of the very best films of 1975 and that's really saying something. Robert Towne's screenplay is perfection.
½ April 13, 2014
Mildly interesting but feels dated. Ostensibly a commentary on the social mores and morals of the late-1960s, this movie hasn't aged well. Much of the moral dilemmas and predicaments, which may have seemed fresh and unique at the time, are ingrained and old news now.

The romance angle is also nothing new.

The free-wheeling young people vs the stuffy older generation was laid on rather thick and is another aspect which seems not at all profound now.

Has its moments though. Some quite funny scenes. Overall, however, just feels dull and pointless.

Decent performances by Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn and Jack Warden.
½ April 10, 2014
Shampoo is a decent film. It is about lovers who undo a hairdresser from Beverly Hills around Election Eve in 1968. Warren Beatty, Goldie Hawn, and Julie Christie give good performances. The script is enjoyable but a little slow in places. Hal Ashby did an alright job directing this movie. I liked this motion picture because of the romance and humor.
March 17, 2014
Warren Beatty prevented another household photo shoot. You have him to thank. Is this movie the '70s version of "High Fidelity"? (which we also just recently watched). No, because much as I love John Cusack, he can never beat Warren.
March 9, 2014
Meh. I didn't see the significance of any of it. Was any of this daring or new in 1975? Still, the principals are nice to watch, and Jack Albertson gets the girl instead of Warren, so there's that.
February 24, 2014
gr8 adult comedy that gets the balance between humor and serious right
January 25, 2014
Lame. Understood it, but didnt get it. Unfunny talkfest satire about a male casanova hairdresser cheating on his gf w literally all of his female clientele.
Weirdly, the actors here are insiders into watching the Hollywood actor sex-trade politics, some actual contributors like Beatty who co-wrote and starred along w his reported real life lover julie christie - who reportedly didn't want to be in it, but did it as a favor to Beatty.
It has a pervading melancholy angst instead of being a light adult sex comedy - that heaviness sucks the life out of the whole movie.
It should have been a real popcorn fest watching hollywood exes dealing w each other, but its like a quietly seething argument at a funeral - you just want out of there, but you politely stay til its over.
The movie ends with a typical 70s, ambiguous ending where everyone wanders away in an angst-y daze.
Its Tired, dated and could only be enhanced by commentary, so at least they could gossip about the interesting things going on while you are being tortured w this bore-fest.
Dont bother..
Look. Now Ive said to

One star for the great soundtrack.

1 of 5
Page 1 of 15