Peter O'Toole plays a sexually compulsive man who is irresistible to the opposite sex. He just can't seem to help himself when it comes to indulging with women, but he says he wants to be monogamous because he adores his fiancée and wants to be faithful to her. His therapist is Peter O'Toole--a guy far more screwed up than any of his patients. And, in contrast, Woody Allen plays the exact opposite of O'Toole--he's a nice guy with zero sex appeal. Throughout the film, various sexy ladies and temptations come their way--including Romy Schneider (the fiancée), Capucine and Paula Prentiss.
Individual elements of "What's New Pussycat?" are very impressive but all together, they are pretty dreadful. The music is pretty catchy--but overused. Peter Sellers is at times quite funny as a totally screwed up psychiatrist. Peter O'Toole is handsome and at times likable. And, Woody Allen is a likable loser. But, when all these elements are combined in this Woody Allen script, the film just doesn't work all that well. I think there are many reasons but the main ones boil down to the film trying WAY too hard to be funny--it truly seems forced and very loud---too loud. And O'Toole, though a fine actor, isn't a particularly funny guy--and the fit with him and Sellers and Allen seems bizarre--like putting Marlon Brando in a Laurel & Hardy film! The film seems to be a product of the wacky and far from subtle 1960s--and is also very reminiscent of another Peter Sellers/Woody Allen bomb, "Casino Royale" (1967)--also a loud, glitzy 60s film that tries way, way, way too hard to be funny and sexy--and ends up being neither...and which also featured some nice music.
Individual elements of "What's New Pussycat?" are very impressive but all together, they are pretty dreadful. The music is pretty catchy--but overused. Peter Sellers is at times quite funny as a totally screwed up psychiatrist. Peter O'Toole is handsome and at times likable. And, Woody Allen is a likable loser. But, when all these elements are combined in this Woody Allen script, the film just doesn't work all that well. I think there are many reasons but the main ones boil down to the film trying WAY too hard to be funny--it truly seems forced and very loud---too loud. And O'Toole, though a fine actor, isn't a particularly funny guy--and the fit with him and Sellers and Allen seems bizarre--like putting Marlon Brando in a Laurel & Hardy film! The film seems to be a product of the wacky and far from subtle 1960s--and is also very reminiscent of another Peter Sellers/Woody Allen bomb, "Casino Royale" (1967)--also a loud, glitzy 60s film that tries way, way, way too hard to be funny and sexy--and ends up being neither...and which also featured some nice music.