Such a frustrating disappointment

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Plot--A pretty boy hairdresser in the ritzy precincts of Hollywood collects a string of paramours like a magnet. But he can't commit to anything outside his job, thereby causing a series of romantic complications.The movie got a lot of press at the time. That's not surprising since oral sex under the table and pornographic verbiage were not common movie currency. Take away the cutting edge novelty, however, and we're not left with much. That George (Beatty) is irresistible to women gets tiresome after about the thirtieth round. Were the lead some other actor, I'd figure the hairdresser stud reflected a big ego-trip. But Beatty needs reinforcement about as much as the Khardashians need more TV exposure.In my book, Warden steals the film as a shady financial manipulator, while Hawn's cuteness holds its own against Christie's sheer good looks. But I'm really glad to see Lee Grant get a challenging role as Warden's tormented wife. Grant was one of the real talents lost for years due to the crippling blacklist of the early fifties. And mustn't overlook Beatty who appears to slide easily into the Why-can't-I-be-more-than-just-a-pretty-boy role. Good thing Ashby directs with a glossy touch making the one-note plot easier to swallow. Anyway, forty years after its release, I view the narrative as a Beverly Hills version of La Dolce Vita (1960), the classic Italian take on the emptiness of the high life. Of course, that film had textures and depths entirely missing from this venture. Nonetheless, there's enough sexy female flesh to keep guys interested. But don't look for a showing at the National Organization of Women (NOW) anytime soon.

"Shampoo" has famed Hollywood ladies' man Warren Beatty playing a role he was apparently born to do: a libidinous male hairdresser who chose his profession solely to be around women.He tries to navigate various relationships on the eve of the election in '68 that saw Nixon become president of the United States.I guess this is supposed to provide a sharp contrast; a man-whore trying to get laid with various women while the country goes to hell. It doesn't work: there isn't enough of the political stuff for it to be anything more than a distraction from the hairdresser's tawdry affairs.It's also an attempt at a comedy, eg. one of the conquests is a wife of a well heeled republican who assumes his wife's hairdresser is gay. This should be funny, but strangely isn't.Goldie Hawn is a true star but isn't given enough to do. You see too much of her, really, to take her seriously as a wide-eyed innocent, who, like the republican, also believes Beatty isn't a cooze hound.The final revelation should be poignant but again, isn't. This movie misses all its marks, and is really only kept afloat by its stars.

Can anyone spell B-O-R-I-N-G ?I have no idea how Warren Beatty carved a career in movies. He is simply an awful, boring, uncharismatic actor. He actually seemed depressed in this film. And it made me depressed watching him be depressed in this role.I fast forwarded over most of this piece of dreck because it was just so utterly boring and ridiculous. What a waste of time. I rented this on Google Play today and I am glad it only cost me $3.21. My advice to everyone out there is don't waste your time with this film. It is simply an overrated piece of junk.

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.