Shampoo (1975) Poster

(1975)

User Reviews

Review this title
137 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Again, what I do in the bedroom is all of your business
StevePulaski29 March 2016
Set on the eve of the presidential election that put Richard Nixon in the oval office, Shampoo revolves around George Roundy (Warren Beatty), a successful, Beverly Hills-based hairdresser, who has ostensibly skated by in life solely on his good looks, charisma, and easygoing charm with women. Despite living and committing to his girlfriend Jill (Goldie Hawn), George still seeks sex from many other women, often his regular clients.

One thing George has consistently wanted to do is open his own hair salon; one day, he turns to Lester and Felicia (Jack Warden and Lee Grant), a wealthy, local-area couple. However, another problem emerges for George and that is the fact that Lester's current mistress (Julie Christie) is one of George's former girlfriends. Lester just outright assumes George, because of his appearance and choice of occupation, is gay, and doesn't see him as any legitimate sexual threat. It isn't until George becomes closer to Lester, meeting his wife, rekindling things with Lester's mistress, and even becoming entranced with select other women that George succumbs to furthering his pedigree as a sexual deviant.

Shampoo subtly evokes the breakdown of the limiting and often sexually regressive sexual politics and standards of the 1960's; it plays similar instruments as Paul Mazursky's brilliant and underrated Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice where the very nature of its plot is subversive because it takes a sensitive, introspective camera into characters' bedrooms rather than simply closing the door on it. It's a period of time in American cinema that I cheekily bill "what I do in the bedroom is all of your business," due to the liberal mindset and furtherance of sexual freedom, orientation, and behavior in public. In the contemporary, sex is still a social taboo in America, but with each year, be it what is accepted by the MPAA, or what is casually discussed by young people in a serious, social setting, the stigma of sex is continuing to be broken in many ways.

Shampoo looks at the social mores by picking a character who is contemptible not because he loves his sex but because of how dishonest he chooses to be. There's nothing wrong with having multiple sexual partners, nor is there nothing inherently wrong with practicing polygamy or sleeping around. There is something wrong, however, with being dishonest or deceptive about it, which is what George consistently is. With that, screenwriters Robert Towne and Beatty seem to recognize this, and Beatty himself seems to recognize it as he's playing the character. Nonetheless, he challenges you to like him largely by the quick-witted and zippy way he moves and conducts himself, as well as the way he works and entertains his clients. He may not be an easy character to like, but he's not an easy character to write off.

With that, Beatty gives an entertaining performance and effective turns an ensemble film into what could easily be mistaken as a one-man show, if it wasn't for the significant presences of Goldie Hawn and Lee Grant, specifically Grant who winds up having some strong scenes with Beatty during more pivotal moments of the film. These inclusions make Shampoo more likable throughout all the contemptible attributes of the film, and the film winds up addressing sexual politics in a way that doesn't tell the audience, but show them. It sort of walks in circles, not always coming to a clear point, but Beatty's performance and its more subtler approach to the material is enough to make it, if nothing else, a thematically and fundamentally interesting piece for the time.

Starring: Warren Beatty, Goldie Hawn, Julie Christie, Jack Warden, and Lee Grant. Directed by: Hal Ashby.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The film portrays its women, perhaps in a questionable way, accompanied by awareness of their way of life
Nazi_Fighter_David7 July 2007
A day in the life of a Southern California hairstylist (Beatty) as he beds three women (Christie, Hawn and Lee Grant) while at the same time trying to seek a loan from businessman Lester (Oscar nominee Jack Warden) to help him open his own salon… His world soon starts to fall apart as he realizes what he fervently wishes in life and the limitations of his cheerful posture toward others…

Lee Grant won an Oscar for playing Lester's bored wife who can't seem to take her eyes off Beatty, and even her nymphet daughter (a young Carrie Fisher) desperately wanted him to be engaging in reciprocal sex… Grant's actually quite jovial and adorable in her role as we heartily feel for her character near the climax…

Warren Beatty appears either excitable or distracted through most of the story… He lies, hides, and denies facts, doing whatever it takes to make everyone happy...

If you like to see Julie Christie notoriously fellating Beatty underneath an elegant dinner table… well don't miss this funny sex comedy which received four Oscar nominations
36 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
This film didn't connect with me at all.....
planktonrules16 October 2016
Some people, often movie critics, love "Shampoo". However, when I watched it tonight I wasn't particularly impressed nor did I love the film. I think much of this is because I am watching it in 2016...and back in 1975 the film was more shocking and groundbreaking. Now, it just seems a bit dull.

The film is about a womanizing jerk. George (Warren Beatty) is a hairdresser whose life seems to revolve around compulsively having sex with women. When the film begins, he's juggling two women (Lee Grant and Goldie Hawn) but after he meets an old flame (Julie Christie), he begins to juggle all three...and even takes time for a quickie with a fourth (Carrie Fisher). During all this time, he's trying (not very hard mind you) to get the funding to open up his own hair salon. All this, at times, is set to the strains of lots of 60s music (almost like it's a music video) and the 1968 election.

I think the reason the film worked in 1975 was its coarse language (f-bombs and middle fingers as well as vulgar terms for sex rarely used before in films). Other than the novelty of all this, the film itself was a bit dull...much of it because of the banality of the plot and characters. In essence, these are a lot of shallow, narcissistic folks who are difficult to care about in any way--even when George, inexplicably, shows a desire to finally settle down. The acting, I suppose, is good but the plot left me flat. Who cares who George makes it with in the film? I didn't.
38 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hairdresser Undresses The Customer
Chrysanthepop6 August 2008
'Shampoo' is quite an interesting period black comedy set in the late 60s during the sex revolution. In one sentence, it's about a Casanova hairdresser who sleeps around with every woman he meets but there is one whom he loves and she happens to be the mistress of a not-to-mess-with businessman. Ashby does a splendid job in bringing out the 60's look but it is Towne and Beatty who bring the feel especially through the dialogues and use of language. Not to mention, the make-up department that does an equally fine job. The humour is somewhat different from other films and traditional viewers may find the jokes somewhat vulgar but that doesn't bother me as long as they manage to draw chuckles and at least make me smile. The actors, that include a vivacious supercute Goldie Hawn, a sizzling Julie Christie, a hilarious Jack Warden, a fiery Lee Grant and a very young Carrie Fisher. But, it is Warren Beaty's film. He demonstrates George's wildness, passion, vulnerability and despair with effective skill. In my humble opinion it is one of his best works, both as actor and writer. I don't understand why people call it outdated. It is set in an older time and if the humour still works, why is it obsolete? I got the movie randomly and now I'm glad that I picked this one.
34 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Classy porn? Not quite, but "Shampoo" represents a breakdown of studio taboos
moonspinner5531 July 2001
Kaleidoscopic comedy-drama about a Beverly Hills hairdresser/womanizer on Election Eve-1968, his life complicated by women, his ex-girlfriend's current lover (whose wife is another "client"), and the perplexing responsibilities facing a man in his thirties. It's not half as daring as it was in 1975, but the performances are excellent, the acerbic script funny, callow, and nakedly emotional. Warren Beatty is not your typical lothario; great pains were taken to make this motorcycle-riding stud both sensitive and shallow, caring and inept, bumbling and suave. Beatty is the ultimate seducer one minute, an exposed fool the next. Lee Grant won Supporting Actress Oscar as Jack Warden's sex-starved wife, but all the acting is on an equal level. Has some brash moments, some dull ones (a political dinner sequence goes on too long), but much local color and dark-hued humor. **1/2 from ****
29 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Jungian Sensation Type.
rmax30482311 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Warren Beatty is a high-end hairdresser who is trying to borrow money from Beverley Hills executive/businessman Jack Warden so he can open his own shop. Meanwhile, he's getting it on behind Warden's back with Warden's wife (Lee Grant), Warden's girl friend (Julie Christie), and Warden's daughter (Carrie Fisher), while at the same time he's dealing with his own girl, Goldie Hawn. Warden makes Beatty's tasks a little easier by believing he's gay. In the course of the 1968 election (Nixon wins over Humphrey), everything falls apart. Beatty finally decides he wants to spend his life with Christie but it's too late. Christie runs off to be married to Warden's wealthy businessman in Acapulco. Last shot: Beatty standing alone on a hill top looking forlornly after Christie's retreating car.

I don't remember my response when I first saw this in a San Rafael theater but I doubt that it would be the same that I had tonight, after seeing it again for the first time in thirty-some years.

For one thing, the protagonist, Beatty, is clearly the person we masculine types are meant to identify with. He only went to beauty school in the first place so that he could meet women, and except for a few nagging doubts, he's in heaven because, man, has he met a lot of rich and beautiful clients. We also must admire his skill. (I guess. I speak from a position of total ignorance.) All his clients seem to have identical hair styles. And, as he explains to Warden, he wants some capital to open his own business because "I'm better than the guy I'm working for." And, as his own boss, we presume new sensual vistas open before him. Beatty is basically a Jungian sensation type, hungry for new stimuli, careless, reckless even, about his means of getting them.

His obvious opposite is Jack Warden's character, this being one of Warden's best and most complex roles. Warden's only skill is making money. He listens only to stock market reports and the only television he watches is during Nixon's election. He's blind to everything else going on around him, the intrigues, the interactional dynamics, although he evidently feels good about his family life, loves his daughter. In the end he's brought down by his own complacency, his own feeling of invulnerability.

And yet, in many respects, he's a more honorable man than Warren Beatty. He really DOES love someone beside himself. And when he realizes that Beatty has been servicing his wife, his girl friend, and his daughter, he doesn't strike out in anger. He huffs and stalks away, then later returns for a rational conversation about solving some of the newly uncovered issues. He's not mean spirited in any way. He's open minded. Finding himself at a hippie psychedelic party, he is puzzled by the naked goings on, but curious too, and a little pleased. He doesn't turn down the joint that's offered him and he's perfectly willing to join a nude threesome in a jacuzzi. "Sure -- why not!" There's the political subtext too. The movie was released in 1975 but is placed in November 1968, meaning the audience knows what will follow. Everyone in the film seems apolitical except for Warden, who hopes things may be different under Nixon, but says, "Ahh, what's the difference? They're all jerks."

Everyone is dragged to a Republican party on election night to witness and celebrate Nixon's victory and it's all hollow and stilted -- tuxedos and formal gowns and only white folks over 50 allowed. The main speaker is Senator East, played by Brad Dexter, whose only memorable role was as the treacherous, murdering henchman in "The Asphalt Jungle." East's speech, about an American Indian legend, is suitably grotesque. The contrast with the fun, strobe-lighted hippie gathering couldn't be more obvious. We get to hear Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and snatches of Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, almost enough in itself to make 1968 sound paradisaical, though to be sure, these are pretty well-heeled hippies and flower power was to turn into violent half-baked revolutions and 1968 was a great year for assassinations.

Still -- okay, Nixonian America was materialistic, Philistine, and shallow in all respects. I didn't vote for Nixon but from our current perspective, that is to say, 2007, and in light of the circumstances from which we now suffer, Nixon is beginning to look more and more like Saint Francis of Assisi, Watergate, the hit list, and all the rest notwithstanding.

I'm not sure that the interpretation I've just outline wasn't exactly the aim of the writers, Warren Beatty and Robert Towne. I might be wrong but both the writers are men of talent and intelligence and the ambiguity might have been what they intended. It's a movie that's filled with ironies that are at the same time bourgeois and heroic. It's well worth watching.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Still a classic despite its shortcomings.
bobsgrock12 May 2010
No matter what the AFI or other critics say, Shampoo is not a great comedy, mostly because it doesn't try to be one. Of course there are some humorous moments such as when George(Beatty) tries to listen to his women and work at the same time, or the out-of-place Lester at a party filled with hippies of the psychedelic era. However, this is a much more serious film than it lets on, which will certainly make some people mad or disappointed in that it didn't live up to its billing.

Yet, I cannot blame this film for what it does well, which is portray the life of a man who simply wants a good time and success and an accurate picture of the times of 1968 when Nixon was about to be elected, the Summer of Love was almost upon us and free love was a progressive idea. Yet, this movie seems harder on these characters than would be let on. Perhaps it is a nostalgic look-back to a time when there was a great feeling of new-found freedom but these people didn't know what to do with it. Some also criticize it for being chauvinistic but in reality, the females are the most confident, the most aware of their situations and the only ones able to make sense of what the next step should be.

As you might expect, the acting is very good with Beatty playing the character completely aloof, always in his own world trying to think faster than the situations being thrown at him. He realizes what a mess he's in but also knows he doesn't want out so easy. Goldie Hawn is a wonderful, charming and confident actress whose beauty is secondary to her talent while Julie Christie gives the film's best performance as a conflicted woman who seems to know exactly what she will do despite not letting on. The Academy Awards only recognized Lee Grant and Jack Warden, perhaps because they represent a past age, a world about to get completely swept up in the new era being established during the '60s.

Some see it as a political satire, others see it as an unfunny comedy about the consequences of free love. I see it as both as well as a very smart character study of what not to do but also why it's so fun doing it.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
needy people
SnoopyStyle15 October 2016
It's the day before the 1968 election of Richard Nixon. George Roundy (Warren Beatty) is a popular womanizing Beverly Hills hairdresser. He is tired of salon owner Norman and wants to start his own place. His meeting with the banker goes badly. His actress girlfriend Jill (Goldie Hawn) is conflicted about going to Egypt for a job. His sex partner Felicia (Lee Grant) recommends his business to her unsuspecting husband Lester (Jack Warden). Lester has an affair with Jackie (Julie Christie) who happens to be George's ex and Jill's friend.

These are self-obsessed needy people. George especially is not appealing. Warren Beatty has the pretty bad boy persona which only adds to the sad nature of these characters. From his first outburst against the banker, it's hard to root for George. He is always distracted by the next pretty thing. This does have an interesting short scene with an unknown straight-talking Carrie Fisher as Felicia's rebellious daughter Lorna. Overall, I don't want to spend two hours with these people. The movie could have savaged these people and their lives but it fails to push the envelop. The talents are top-notch but I don't care about these characters enough to like this movie. They are also not ugly enough to hate. It's probably trying to connect them to the Nixonian era.
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I know it's classed as comedy but...
bluegoldhighlander15 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
...while there are certainly humorous moments in this film, overall I found it mostly poignant. After watching this film I always feel a sense of longing, loss and nostalgia for the past. Is this what George is feeling when finally proposing to Jackie? A feeling that perhaps the past was better than what is currently being experienced and a compulsion to try and re-create some of that magic that existed when he was younger? The closing scene of him watching Jackie being driven away by Lester (wonderfully portrayed by Jack Warden) is one of the most touching scenes of loss in modern film? To finally recognise what is important only when it is too late is one of the most affecting human tragedies.

Dismissing George as a simple playboy I think also sells this movie short. Certainly George is a womanizer in this film, but I feel he could also be seen as much used as the user. Certainly the women in this film (Felicia, Lorna, Jill and to some extent Jackie) could be seen as the aggressors in most of the sex that occurs. The constant demands of all the women in this film, even the women on the street that come up to George and demand "call me," make George in some ways a character that deserves some sympathy.

Overall I find Shampoo to be very under-appreciated, being written off as a mere sex/comedy farce. There is a lot more depth to it than that. To really appreciate it, it should be looked at in the context of the time it was made, the end of one era (swinging 60's) and the beginning of another, characterized more by the loss of innocence (Watergate, end of Vietnam, 70's recession). Surely this translates equally well to the passing of any era and the moving on into new times that may not be that comfortable to those that fully enjoyed what went before.
38 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, not great, comedy of manners about a ladies man and the women around (and usually detesting) him
Quinoa198412 August 2005
Warren Beatty is George, a hair stylist in 1968 Beverly Hills. In Shampoo, he's usually not in the same place for more than a minute (unless it's with one of the ladies). His mind is also being tugged at different directions: at the start of the film he's doing the deed with one woman, and then swings right over to town to meet his 'love' (Goldie Hawn). Enter Jackie Shawn (Julie Christie, a spirit in any movie she's in), wife of Lester (Jack Warden, maybe the best performance of the film), a well-to-do man. Jackie, it seems, has a stronger will than George, which starts to turn him on to her. After a day of mishaps, uncomforted at a high society dinner, it goes to a hippie party, where everything starts to unravel for George. All the while the 68 election is on in the background, a dark shadow always around the 'me-me-me' qualities that would define a generation.

If the film isn't as strong in a satirical way than it could've been, it is not without trying; Robert Towne does give a few funny parts (Julie Christie's line, I won't say which, but it makes Beatty almost choke, is uproarious), and its mostly low-key humor, or stuff that's more subtle than expected. Hal Ashby, the director, keeps a good eye of interest throughout, making the hippie party at night even more interesting than the lead characters themselves. There's also Beatty, who in this film acts very much like the typical Beatty we might envision- womanizer, liar, and ultimately like a little puppy that tries to give sympathy after making a mess. The female performances are, like their characters, a little above Beatty, giving note of the feminist collective that was strong at the time.

It's not a bad film in the least, but to say that it wasn't great isn't a miscalculation- there are points where the laughs just don't quite click, or the speed of everything washes over what could've been better scenes. And yet, there is a factor to Shampoo that is great for its time, which means that it is a little more challenging than the standard romantic-comic romp; the ending, to me, was a breakthrough. As George stand on that hill-top the next morning, there is a sort of catharsis if not message (its hard to get any message from this film, as it is a string of love/hate bits). How does a ladies man, a hairdresser of all things, get taken off his game? Shampoo reveals that. It might actually serve very well as a 'chick flick' in some circles, even for today's audiences (that is, if the old-school Warren Beatty still serves as a Hollywood treat for women).
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A completely boring, tedious, unfunny and unsexy movie.
bobleb30 August 2000
I rented this film and watched for the first time over the past three days. It took me that long simply because there is a limit to how much boredom I'm willing to endure at one sitting.

My first reaction after finishing was that the movie has no point at all. But on reflection, I've decided it has one (although feeble) ... namely, that Warren Beatty can appear to bed a large number of women, so long as he writes the script!

It is dumbfounding to me that this film is described as a comedy, and even more stupifying that it was included on the AFI 100 Funniest list. I genuinely did not laugh a single time during my (3 day) ordeal.

It is also amazing that I have seen the movie described as sexy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "sex" portrayed is so mechanical that it's the opposite of a turn on.

I gave the film a "1" rating. Only because I didn't find "0" to be available.
29 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Incapable of love"
Steffi_P27 January 2011
Back in the early 1930s, in the time of cinema known as "pre-code" due to the general disregard for the prohibitive Motion Picture Production Code, there were lots of so-called sex comedies which made gags out of the bed-hopping escapades of their philandering heroes. The best of them were renowned for their cleverness in hinting at sexual acts that could not be shown on screen. Forty years later the production code had been scrapped and sex now could be (and frequently was) shown explicitly, but the sex comedy did not make a significant comeback. Shampoo is a rare but prime example.

Shampoo is a sex comedy in that most, if not all, of its jokes revolve around sex, or at least the implication that sex has taken place or might be about to take place. As a result it is arguable that the comedy is a bit thin and repetitive, and it is true that the story is hardly bursting with riotous wit. And yet ace screenwriter Robert Towne constructs situations that are funny in their believable social awkwardness. They might only raise a chuckle or two over the course of a scene, but they have an almost soap opera quality which keeps us watching. Besides, there's a bit more going on here than bedroom humour. The decision to set it seven years in the past seems strangely arbitrary at first, but it has a surprisingly moving impact when political events start to creep into the narrative, and Warren Beatty's womanising antics are put into some perspective.

Like all comedies, a lot of its success or otherwise depends on the acting performances. This was largely an age of realism in acting, but here the performances are just on the comedic side of real. Nobody does anything which is exactly funny in its own right, but it often is funny in its timing and context. For example, there is Beatty's mumbled excuse to Carrie Fisher (whom he has just had sex with) when he is dragged off by Lee Grant (who intends to have sex with him). Similarly, a lot of Jack Warden's self-important manliness is funny in the context of the fact that Beatty is busy screwing his wife, mistress and teenage daughter. Lee Grant gives another of her typically attention-grabbing minor roles, the authoritative society lady one minute, girlishly sipping a soft drink through a straw the next. Returning to Beatty, I'm also vaguely amused by the way he emphasises the last syllable in "pancreas" during the first scene, as if it's some kind of ass.

The director here is Hal Ashby, a really fine craftsman of 70s cinema with a deceptively simple approach. He doesn't move the camera much, and often keeps back a bit from the action, not in a cold, distant way but more to show everything that is going on in a scene and allow the actors' body language to come across as well as facial expression. This is even effective for the comedy, such as in the scene where Beatty trashes the bin outside the bank, in which the wide shot makes him look somewhat pathetic in his anger. When Ashby does move the camera it is usually to give an impression a setting or situation, often with beautiful economy, and nearly always disguised by following the movement of a character. Take the shot which introduces Jack Warden's home life. He enters from one end of the room, kisses his daughter in mid-shot and surrounded by lots of colour. Then as he crosses what turns out to be a rather large room, the camera wheels round, to reveal his wife sitting alone amid stark white furnishings. An editor before he took up directing, Ashby clearly knows the potentially comedic value of a well-timed crosscut. For example, after the scene in which Warden discusses whether or not Beatty is "a fairy", we cut to a shot of Beatty blow-drying a woman's hair, her face virtually in his crotch.

But there is one thing that makes Shampoo really stand out, and this is something which comes both from Ashby's direction and the Towne/Beatty screenplay: Despite coming from a more liberated era, it still has the artful good taste of the sex comedies of the 30s. It resists the temptation to become soft porn or a string of gross-out jokes. There is only a little partial nudity, and for the most part we do not see much of the sex acts, only their beginnings and aftermaths. And this is an era in which a fairly graphic sex scene was fast becoming a staple of any romantic movie. Despite its being a comedy almost wholly concerned with one man's sexual adventures, Shampoo is a surprisingly mature and refreshingly intelligent motion picture.
25 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Shampoo
btreakle20 August 2020
I love Goldie Hawn and she is excellent in this comedy. Highly recommended
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Big on hair - low on content
Mikelito4 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I happen to think the 70s were - very generally speaking - the period where commerce and art met at a favourable crossroads only to drift apart in the future.

This movie is one antithesis of this theory but alas... There is definitely a groundswell of (then) controversial, non-PC use of the F-word and supposedly sexual imagery in this film but this overlong work does not really know what it wants or how to get there.

Beatty is a hilariously clichéd big-haired open-shirted chain-clad buffoon Hollywood (?) hairdresser with a tight schedule of doing both rich women's hair and their nether regions.

So this is supposedly about the rich part of L.A. - pity that these people were such cowards that they didn't name names - not even remotely as in a Citizen Kane way. No, the only name mentioned is Nixon but more about that later.

Goldie Hawn is the quasi love interest of our fine shallow fellow. She happens to be in the twilight of her blondie one-trick-pony shtick and she is sporting her knickers under miniskirt dresses at every opportunity. Eventually she finds an even bigger dork than our hairdresser after finally realizing her dream boy is sleeping around with 1.000 other women. Duh...

Our follicle fondling friend needs money for his very own hair salon. So there is a scene in a bank which is almost as hilarious as any Steve Martin/Carl Reiner scene, albeit unintentional I'm afraid.

Nixon? What exactly is the role of politics in this thinly veiled soap opera?! This is a 1975 movie about 1968. Wow - how fantastic to be clever in hindsight. Talk about kicking someone who is down and out. The whole Republican party scenery is completely pointless and does nothing for the movie which is as superficial as its protagonist - the bike-riding brain-free womanizer.

The climax of the movie is an election party which is about as unrealistic and cheesy as an Ed Wood setting - only TWENTY YEARS LATER. Wow.

My conclusion is this: What we have here is 100 soap opera episodes condensed into one feature film with a little dose of quasi-politics and f-words thrown in.

Are Hal Ashby and Warren Beatty French? France has come up with many clever and very interesting movies but also with the Jean-Luc Godard school of film which is to film any amount of nonsensical film segments and give it some meaning afterwards. Example: You literally film anything and call it "revolution". Any modestly equipped brain can make an association with any given imagery and any word.

I love details like that brown-haired stuntman riding his bike around Hollywood. He doesn't look like Beatty. That is funny. Just like the ending which means absolutely nothing. I do like the movie for all the L.A. smog that can be seen every time this soap opera decides to show us more than a few people's petty self-indulgent sex cravings.
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Country Wife
casper-1225 July 2003
Beatty says he approached Towne to do a modern version of the classic restoration comedy called The Country Wife (hilarious by the way). In the original play, the hero beds all the wives by confessing to their husbands that he's impotent so the husbands make fun of him and think nothing of leaving their frustrated and underappreciated wives in his care.

Here in the updated "Shampoo", Beatty and Towne make the hero an assumed-to-be-gay hairdresser (instead of impotent)and the results are inspired bedroom farce mixed with social satire.

Younger viewers may find the film a little dated but it was a "period" film when it was made (set in 68 when it was shot in 74) so Ashby consciously gave it that dated look. For me this and Heaven Can Wait are Beatty's best work. Walks a fine comic/tragic line. And this really feels like the closest character to Beatty's heart. It was after this that I went back and saw Splendor in the Grass and began to appreciate Beatty as an actor rather than just a gigolo celebrity.

Great dialogue by Towne, Jack Warden's hilarious and Julie Christie is stunning.
51 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A mid-1970s look back at a pivotal time... but saying what?
groening-220 February 2007
Seeing this film 30 years after its release makes its intentions clearer then when I saw it back then, but it still fails to deliver fully.

One way of understanding "Shampoo" is as a movie about the '60s. It may be hard for some to believe today, but by 1975 the '60s, as a culturally time-stamped era, were over. Long over. The '60s really began with John F. Kennedy's assassination and ended with Richard Nixon's resignation (November 1963 to August 1974). The times and the atmosphere had changed by the mid-1970s, probably because the youth rebellion movement fractured as the Vietnam War wound down, and because many student radicals either "joined the human race" (as a Steely Dan song from the period put it), became more radical underground, or went off to live in the woods somewhere.

But what does "Shampoo" mean to say about those wild years? Warren Beatty's George character takes pains to note that he's not a hippie. And he's not. He's devoid of social and political values, and he says, late in the film, that he has no interest in fighting the Establishment. What he is interested in is casual sex -- and that certainly was part of the social upheaval of those years -- and he's interested in hair styles. But not much more. So is the film suggesting that in the end, the '60s were about soulless, casual sex and hair? It's not by accident that the film takes places in the 24-hour period in which Nixon becomes president. And the film was made just after (or just before?) Nixon resigned in disgrace. The TV clips of Nixon and his vice president Spiro Agnew expressing their hope for an open and inclusive government ring funny but sadly against what we know would follow. Is "Shampoo" saying that with all the partying and hedonism, the younger generation missed the boat and allowed Nixon to get elected? Interestingly, George doesn't vote, nor do we see any of his women friends voting, or even acknowledging the election.

Or is "Shampoo" about the shallow California lifestyle that was fully ripe by the mid-1970s? The Eagles' landmark album statement "Hotel California," which savaged the vapidity of that cocaine- and sex-addled culture, was released just a year after this film (see also Jackson Browne's song, "The Pretender"). It also occurs to me that Beatty may be satirizing himself -- or at least the version of himself that Carly Simon satirized in "You're So Vain" -- in this role.

"Shampoo" is worth seeing to understand the reassessment of the '60s that was already underway by the mid-1970s. But films like "Deer Hunter" and "Nashville" I think do it better. "Shampoo" falls short in that we can't really sympathize with Beatty's character, or with anyone else. The perspective we have is as distanced and as numb as George is in his relationships with women. There's lots of "fucking," as George puts it, but not much building tension or release achieved here.

In the end, it's not entirely clear what the film is saying about 1968, 1975 or about people like George.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
When does he find time to do hair?
mark.waltz13 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Besides making it with every broad this side of his sister, Shirley, Warren Beatty finds himself as the lothario of the 1970's even with that wretched hairstyle of his own. The opening has him involved in an affair with Lee Grant, the Mrs. Robinson of the 1970's, who doesn't seem to mind that her powerful Republican husband Jack Warden has a young mistress of his own, the sweet Julie Christie. When Beatty, already involved in an uncommitted affair with Goldie Hawn (who is really just a female friend with benefits), also receives a pass from Grant and Warden's underage daughter, Carrie Fisher.

So this is a comedy about sex, but Beatty might change his playboy ways if Christie has her way. Young fisher proves herself to be quite in charge when she confronts Beatty about his sexuality. Set around the election of Richard Nixon 6 years before, this has an outrageous election night party where Christie shocks Warden and angers Grant with a hysterically funny pass towards Beatty, followed by the oh so dignified speech of oblivious society matron Doris Packer.

This can't help but be an unapologetic product of its times, even if there were major cultural differences between 1968 and 1975. Hawn and Christie are window dressing, yet very good, and Beatty is often a selfish prick. For as unlikable as their self- centered older characters are, it is Grant and Warden who stand out, with Grant stealing every scene she's in. The script is amusing and very adult, and makes me glad that in 41 years, sexual morals have provided at least a little decency that this makes fun of.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Probably the first "porno" movie involving big name stars
rlcsljo3 September 2000
After the flood gates have been opened, no one appreciates the first drop of water. This is what Shampoo was the first movie using "established" actors (other films made their actors stars afterwards) to show some semblance of "the deed" (non-explicit, of course--we have not seen that yet in this context).

Nowadays, it has been pretty commonplace for many major stars to have an "soft core" love scene, but the fact that this is so common just goes to show how much of a ground breaking film "Shampoo" was. We found out (from a major studio, at least) what the swinging part of being a swinging bachelor involved.

If you think Shampoo does not hold up well, try renting "Airport" or "Earthquake" or any of the other dreck of disaster flicks that were big at the box office at the time. I believe when you see what we were getting from major studios at the time, you will appreciate Shampoo infinitely more!.

Aside: Seeing all those short skirts again brought a tear to my eye--please god bring them back!
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
hideously self-indulgent
onepotato28 January 2005
The story of a p*ssy-seeking alpha-male (played by then alpha-male Beatty) produced by said "star" as a p*ssy-seeking ad for himself.

All that George (Beatty) cares about is that the number of chicks he's nailing increases, because his self-regard requires it. He doesn't care about or connect with any of his conquests. But that's no matter because as viewers, we don't care about them either, because they're 70's era self-actualizing simps. With a decent script or in the service of a greater message, the best this could have been is something like Boogie Nights, which isn't saying much.

The open sexuality of the 60s became "dirty" junk like in the 70's; the smutty, repulsive aftermath. Maybe people didn't notice how ugly their surroundings were because they were zeroing in on which occupants they wanted to nail, or forgetting the last one they actually did. The story implicates seventies values topically; bad hair, bad clothes, bad music... The production implicates Hollywood values, with hyperactive bit-actors trying to hog the screen. Everyone enters a scene shrill and loud. Viewers who see fun in this, miss the fatuous self-absorption and meanness to the whole thing.

Beattys stammering cuteness is tiresome in all his movies. The only scene in which he's required to show any emotional range is the last one. You have got to see it to believe it. Beatty flexes every muscle in his body trying to overcome his cuteness and register something complicated on his face and FAILS utterly. In a just world, this scene should have ruined his career.

Structurally this is a train wreck. It should be regarded as the Showgirls of the 70s. Artistically it's sh*t. Thanks Warren. The DVD should come with a syringe full of penicillin.
24 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fun 60s lifestyles with social criticism thrown in
roger-21225 July 2004
Hal Ashby always leavened his comedic films (Harold and Maude, Being There, Last Detail) with sharp social commentary and observation, and "Shampoo" is no different. Taking place on the eve and day of the 1968 Presidential Election, it's as concerned with the "free love" hedonism as it is with the profound and dark social changes that had taken place by 1975 (the year "Shampoo" was produced).

Beatty has never been more charming - or revealing as emptily vain as anyone so "successful" with women can become, and the film switches between surprisingly adult material even for now with a concern for mid-life crises, cultural politics, and ultimately, a cynical view of how the free-wheeling 60s counterculture didn't take themselves seriously enough. Robert Towne's influence in the script is clearly evident.

Already "dated" when it came out, it's a great snapshot of the times, its concerns and issues, and is relevant today.
49 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not sure it's really a comedy.
andynwlad24 January 2019
Saw this recently on a great channel that shows old movies in the UK. It's very much a period piece of it's time, I was surprised to see it was set in the late 60s as to me it has much more of a seventies feel. I didn't really warm to any of the characters, none of them are particularly likeable or sympathetic. Interesting that it received an X rating, I suspect now it would probably be rated as a 15. I was also surprised to see that it received a best supporting actress oscar, the actress concerned isn't particularly noteworthy in this part, must've had light competition that year.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No, Real Poo
bigverybadtom19 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Muppets TV show actually had such a joke: a TV reporter interviews a wig maker, and the reporter sniffs a wig and asks, "Don't you ever use shampoo on them?" Replies the wig maker, "No we only use real poo." I am not making this up.

If you thought the joke was childish, try this movie. Ironically enough, I rented it on the basis that it was mentioned as a good movie by none other than the infamous film snob Pauline Kael. I figured that if she recommends a movie, it therefore has to be great. But I got disabused of this notion fast.

The story is about a hairdresser (presumed to be gay, ha-ha) who is sleeping with a number of girlfriends. I was expecting a bedroom farce, but the laughs were nonexistent. The story takes place on Election Eve in 1968, but that seems unrelated to the story. Perhaps the movie was meant to be a social satire, but I missed what the target was.

The movie is not only unfunny, it's slow-moving and boring. We find no reason to like or relate to the hairdresser. But when it is revealed he is sleeping both with a woman AND her daughter simultaneously, that was too repulsive and we switched it off. The hairdresser isn't merely a womanizer, he's a genuine creep. We didn't care what would happen to him in the end, we wanted nothing more to do with him.
18 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Underrated Classic
raymond_chandler30 July 2001
This is one of those films that all takes place in one 24-hour period. When such movies work, the changes in the characters' lives feel more real and intense. So it is in "Shampoo", as we watch George's world slowly crumble.

Rarely has a movie-star's real life persona been used to better effect. Warren Beatty gives a moving performance as a guy who sincerely does not intend to hurt anyone, but he becomes a victim of his own allure. He is supported by fantastic ensemble acting.

Written by Beatty and Robert Towne (Chinatown), and directed by Hal Ashby (Harold and Maude, Being There), "Shampoo" is Hollywood moviemaking at its best, and it deserves to be ranked with its more well-known contemporaries, like "M*A*S*H", "Annie Hall", and "The Sting". Its theme of the emptiness of unchecked promiscuity is still relevant in a culture where sex is more of a commodity than ever.
38 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A mixed bag with some laughs
thomas196x20007 September 2022
Beatty plays an aging Lothario that manages to bed all the women that throw themselves at him. He's a hairdresser back when most male hairdressers were considered "fags" and best not to be seen with them. He wants to open his own shop, which of course is managed by a stereotypical gay, catty, obnoxious individual. That's played for laughs too. The film is set on a single day, Nixon's election in 1968.

The film starts out with a dizzying portrayal of Beatty's "George" character having a typical day. Between sex, running around giving haircuts, running out of time, trying to get a loan for his business while demonstrating he doesn't know a thing about business, the viewer is more out of breath than George is. The true laughs come about when George, his actress girlfriend, the guy who is interested in her personally and perhaps has a role for her, a woman who he is sleeping with, her husband from whom George wants to get a loan, and the husband's mistress who is also having an affair with George...all converge at a party and try to hide secrets, knowledge, desires, and anger. There are some good laughs there, as well as when the action shifts to a party at a home. Of course, at the election party, all the Republicans there are depicted as boobs...doing Indian chants, giving dumb speeches, etc. This is Hollywood, remember.

Go along for the ride and it is not a bad time. However, some viewers--and critics--tried to tie in the politics and the background of the evening to the theme of the film and changing morals and viewpoints of the time. This is a mistake, as Beatty suggested the election night setting at the last moment and it was worked into the movie.

It's a satire of immorality--sexual impulses, desires, bad mistakes, the inability to connect for a true relationship, and regrets.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Now looking rinsed
Prismark1019 December 2018
In 1975 Shampoo was considered groundbreaking not only because of its general coarseness but also because of its sexual politics and even politics full stop. The film is set on the eve of President Nixon's election victory.

Boy has it dated. Not helped that it does not look like a film set in 1968 more like a movie set in the mid 1970s. As a character playing an ace hairdresser, Beatty needed a better haircut for the period.

George (Warren Beatty) is a high end Hollywood hairdresser and a rampant womaniser. He is looking for money to set up his own salon and is introduced to wealthy Lester (Jack Warden) as a potential investor.

Trouble for Lester is, George has slept with his wife, daughter and lover Jackie (Julie Christie.) George also has a lover Jill (Goldie Hawn) of his own who is tired of his infidelities and in attentiveness.

Beatty who co-wrote the screenplay with Robert Towne and was hoping to show an era where a great hedonistic party is ending with the election of Nixon. The characters are shallow and unlikeable with only Lester having some kind of world weary decency.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed