What's New Pussycat (1965) User Reviews

Michael James: "Pussycat from the sky, I can't resist you"

[Galina_movie_fan · 6/10 · 29 April 2007]

"What's New Pussycat? (1965) was directed by a British director, Clive Donner and it is the first feature film for which Woody Allen wrote the original screenplay. Allen also played a supporting role of Victor Skakapopulis, the friend of Michael James (Peter O'Toole). Michael is a fashion editor, surrounded by beauty and glamor of his models which he can't refuse. He truly loves his fiancée Carole (Romy Schneider) and wants to be faithful to her but what can a man do if the gorgeous women literally fell for him from the sky? He sees a psychoanalyst Dr. Fassbender (Peter Sellers) who is not much of help and faces his own demons. Meanwhile, Victor is desperately in love with his best friend's fiancée...

The movie reminds a lot "Casino Royale" - it was made in the 60s, has a great cast (Peter Sellers, Peter O'Toole, Romy Schneider, Capucine, Paula Prentiss, Woody Allen, Ursula Andress), strikingly beautiful women and the song by Burt Bacharach. It takes place in Paris - and it is almost as much mess as "Casino... " is - silly, naive, and often simply ridiculous but somehow it works after all these years. One of the reasons I believe is Allen's script, the dialogs and one-liners that are hilarious. This time, Allen received more screen time that in Casino.... and he made his scenes very funny. "What's New Pussycat?" is not a great movie but it is charming and I like it.

6.5/10

exhausting

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 13 September 2015]

I guess this was the weekend on TCM for '60s international films. In the '60s, most of what was done was big - big historical dramas, big western dramas, big international comedies, and done on a smaller scale, the sex comedies like Sex and the Single Girl.

What's New Pussycat was an international sex comedy with the usual huge, well known cast: Peter Sellers, Romy Schneider, Peter O'Toole, Ursula Andress, Paula Prentiss, Capucine, with a cameo by Richard Burton. This was Woody Allen's first produced film script and his first film role. It wasn't a happy experience.

Peter O'Toole plays Michael James, the British editor of a Paris magazine He is in love with Carole (Schneider). She wants to get married, but he can't commit to her. Women are constantly after him, and he is constantly giving in.

He sees one Dr. Fritz Fassbender (Sellers) who wants Michael's life, particularly one of his patient, Renee (Capucine). Carole, meanwhile, is friendly with Michael's friend Victor (Allen) who is crazy about her and also wants Michael's life. The whole thing converges at the Château Chantel one weekend.

This film is purportedly based on the love life of Warren Beatty and the title taken from the way he answered the phone. He obviously did not wind up making the film. Peter Sellers adlibbed through a great deal of the movie and took all of Woody Allen's funny lines, diminishing Allen's part. The two of them loathed one another.

What's New Pussycat started out hilariously, with funny dialogue and situations. As it went on, it became more and more of an annoying mess and went out of control, culminating in a Keystone Kops type scene that was very funny. However, what preceded it was disorganized insanity.

There definitely are funny scenes and good performances. Paula Prentiss is especially good, as is Allen. Sellers is great until he seems to veer off of the script. I'm not sure if Peter O'Toole did his own stunts, but some of what he did was fantastic - the role called for him to be very physical. He was quite funny. Romy Schneider as usual was the straight man to this chicanery.

Watch in the bar scene where Peter O'Toole and a man talk and O'Toole says, give my best to what's-her-name - it's Richard Burton, and the what's-her-name is guess who. Very cute.

I like slapstick, I like madcap, but I like it structured, so I'm not the best judge of this. I prefer the MGM Marx Brothers to the Paramount ones, for instance.

This was hard to take after a while.

Enjoy irresponsibly

[bobf-9 · 7/10 · 20 May 2005]

"A sports car…is a sign of man's virility. You should get two, maybe." - Peter Sellers, to Woody Allen

'What's New, Pussycat?' is not a great movie. There isn't much in the way of a plot, it's constructed haphazardly, and parts of it don't make a lot of sense.

That's part of its charm. 'The Pink Panther', from the same era, also has a large, recognizable, hugely talented cast, and it's a much more coherent, technically proficient film. It is also less funny.

Just in case you've never seen anything about the movie before: Peter O'Toole plays Michael, a magazine writer and philanderer in mid-1960's Paris. His dilemma (dramatic conflict, if you will) is Carol (Romy Schneider) a woman he loves so much he wants to be faithful to her, if indeed he can give up all other women and marry her. Other women include Paula Prentiss, Capucine, and Ursula Andress; Woody Allen is the friend with the not so secret crush on Carol. Michael's psychoanalyst is played by Peter Sellers, which should tell you about as much as you need to know.

WNP? has a mood, created in large part by the Bacharach score, that I don't want to call innocent because it tries so hard to be naughty, but there it is. The drug culture hadn't yet picked up the cultural grip released by post-50's paranoia, and a sloppy, silly picture like this seemed to be a good idea.

And that's enough of that; a movie that contains the line 'it's my wife – the creature that ate Europe' shouldn't be over-analyzed. Enjoy it for what it is.

Forests and trees

[BrandtSponseller · 7/10 · 11 June 2005]

Is it significant that the demographic group who most likes What's New, Pussycat? are males under the age of 18 and the group who likes it the least are females over the age of 45? I have to admit that as a male (although far closer to over 45 than under 18), What's New, Pussycat? somewhat resembles my fantasies of utopia, which would involve a lot of wanton polyamory. But I can't judge a film just on how much I like its freewheeling ethics and its regular presentation of beautiful women. What's New, Pussycat? is often funny and occasionally hilarious, but it also has a lot of plot and direction problems, enough so that by the time the big climax arrives, it feels more like just another random sequence instead of the climax it should feel like (subtextual fuel for the anti-polyamory crowd's fire?)

The story turns out to be centered on a handsome man, Michael James (Peter O'Toole), who attracts women even more than he's attracted to them. He calls them all "pussycat", and that's about all he needs to do to have them ready to jump into bed with him. He's most in love with Carole Werner (Romy Schneider), who keeps pressuring him to get married, but he isn't ready to ditch his polyamorous ways, and he doesn't want to cheat on her after they're married. Michael's psychoanalyst, Dr. Fritz Fassbender (Peter Sellers), is also something of a womanizer, but women don't seem to like him near as much. Michael is also an acquaintance of Victor Shakapopulis (Woody Allen), who is moderately successful with women, but most importantly, he is also in love with Carole. The plot involves various sticky situations, so to speak, between these characters and various ancillary characters.

In addition to appearing as a co-star, Woody Allen wrote the script. This was his first real film. He had done a short called The Laughmaker in 1962, and a lot of television prior to What's New, Pussycat? and of course he had done a lot of stand-up. The script is good, at least on the "trees" level (as opposed to the "forest" level), and Allen's performance in his first film makes it easy to see how he became such a big star. He steals the film whenever he appears. O'Toole, who I've never been a very big fan of, tends to come across with an odd combination of stiffness and pretentiousness, despite Allen's good writing. Sellers seems as if director Clive Donner kept him in check a bit too much, and subsequently can seem lost. But Allen's now famous stock film personality shines through in his scenes. Performing his own comedy, even though he didn't direct, Allen's scenes flow, seem natural, have perfect timing, and are very funny.

Still, it might be difficult to not blame Allen for some of the overall messiness of the story--on the "forest" level. Donner starts with a scene that may be attractive visually--it features Sellers and his Wagnerian Viking wife bickering in their unusual home, shot from a wide angle so we can see the entire front of the house while they run around to from room to room, stairway to stairway--but the unusualness doesn't seem to have much point dramatically. That's indicative of problems to come. Donner too frequently blocks and shoots scenes at unfortunate angles. And there are far too many scenes that seem to be there just to be groovy or unusual, but they drag down the plot, sometimes almost grinding it to a halt.

As the film progresses, the complex relationships involving many different parties can become confusing. It doesn't help that some actors change their look--such as cutting their hair--as the film unfolds. Ancillary characters can come and go without warning and with little explanation. The climax depends on a large number of people heading to the same location, but for half of them, it's not at all clear why they head there, they just announce that they're going. The climax is still a bit funny, and it's one of the better and more complexly staged sequences, but it doesn't have anything like the impact it should. Story-wise, the film feels over before the climax even arrives.

As I just mentioned in my (more favorable) review of the same year's Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine, the 1960s, because of a number of factors including the near non-existent application of the dreaded Hays Production Code at this point and a general social atmosphere of experimentation, resulted in films that tended to be sprawling and experimental in their approach to such basics as plot. What's New, Pussycat? is a prime example. It often becomes clear that plot is being played with in a way that leads to occasional abandonment. In a way, What's New, Pussycat? is more just a collection of skits or scenarios, with a loosely related theme. While I'm a fan of experimentation and I admire the loosey-goosey, stream-of-consciousness attitude suggested, and Allen certainly satisfies my taste for absurdism in some of his scenarios (such as his birthday dinner), the fact remains that in this case, the plot experimentation just doesn't quite work.

The final judgment, however, is that I slightly recommend What's New, Pussycat? but primarily to see Allen's scenes and enjoy the writing of his scenarios. There are other attractors and interesting aspects, including the fact that Ursula Andress has probably never looked better than she does here (although she's looked as good), but like an unfortunate many of these 1960s "madcap comedies", What's New, Pussycat? should be approached with a bit of caution.

Woody Allen's hit and miss sex comedy

[didi-5 · 17 October 2004]

This film is so sixties you can't believe it, from its eye-popping colours to the sight of Peter O'Toole and pals dancing OTT to Manfred Mann's 'Little Red Book'. O'Toole plays Michael James, a sex-mad fashion magazine editor who takes his troubles to a sex-mad psychiatrist (the amusingly bats Peter Sellers, in a Richard III wig and tight costumes), and shares neuroses with his weedy friend Woody Allen (who scripted this hit and miss movie).

There are some excellent bits - Romy Schneider, as Michael's fiancée and number one girlfriend, Carole, runs a language class which pitches in on a quarrel she has with him ('Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye' - 'You're all parrots!); Michael has nightmares where Sellers appears as, yup, Richard III, and all his girlfriends converge on him like a swarm of ants; Sellers plans a Viking funeral suicide (swathed in the Union Jack) but is interrupted by Allen dining al fresco for his birthday; O'Toole assists Sellers in a Cyrano de Bergerac style wooing; and there is frentic chase involving go-karts towards the end of the film. All this and the opera-shrilling psychiatrist's wife. And a lot of potted plants.

Fun food for the eyes really and a no-brainer, but 'What's New Pussycat?' is fun, off-the-wall, and requires no real attention span. O'Toole was certainly right for the part and of course, there is always Tom Jones' famous theme song and the cartoon credits with a chorus line of pussycats ...

Many misfires, but also a lot going for it.

[ags123 · 7/10 · 2 July 2005]

It's hard to recommend this film if you're looking for non-stop laughs. The humor is hit- and-miss, with far too many misfires. But there's still a lot going for it, especially, a stellar cast who appear to be game for anything. Peter O'Toole proves he can be very funny. Peter Sellers as a lecherous psychiatrist, with a Prince Valiant wig, and a Valkyrie wife is a character right out of Woody Allen's comic sensibility. Woody himself is here, refining and polishing his nebbish persona so convincingly, that many viewers assume he's not acting at all. His assignment, when hired to write the film, was merely to gather a collection of beautiful women and send everyone off to Paris.

There is a bevy of beautiful women here. Paula Prentiss gets the most obviously outrageous role: a suicidal poetry-with-a-social-conscience writer who's also a performer at the Crazy Horse Saloon. The exquisite Capucine shows off her remarkable flair for physical comedy. Ursula Andress doesn't have to do anything other than show up in a bikini, but even she turns out to be a delightful comedienne. Romy Schneider doesn't fare as well. She looks amazing, but her character is cloying. She does shine, however, in the hilarious English-as- a-second-language class sequence.

There are some other gems: The nighttime courting below the window, the group therapy sessions, the library bully. The film comes to life at the end when it turns into pure slapstick. It contrives to assemble all the characters in a French château, with everyone chasing after each other in some cleverly devised sight gags. Just don't look for consistency, coherence, or continuity in this film. They don't exist. Enjoy it, instead, as a series of comic set-pieces.

Unusual People in Real Situations, Real People in Unusual Situations

[jzappa · 7/10 · 2 November 2009]

This, the first time Woody Allen wrote and played in a film, is indeed an easygoing laugh-a-minute introduction to his unmistakable neurosis humor, though it is not a proper introduction to the height of his genius as a writer or an on-screen persona, which in its cinematic infancy here is in its mostly widely recognized distillation, an intellectual nebbish whose life is a never-ending uphill battle to deduce why he can't score with any women. Like his first three efforts at the helm, What's Up, Tiger Lily?, Take the Money and Run and Bananas, What's New Pussycat? is a prime example of the swinging '60s vogue, but whereas in Take the Money and Run, for instance, his cinematic approach hearkens back to early documentaries and silent comedies, this romp is under the much more generic direction of Clive Donner, who had before been an assistant director.

But even as an especially commercial production with a then modern pop soundtrack, which absorbed the movie lots of success (though the most memorable use, a Dionne Warwick track, was much overlooked), and a slapdash editing job, it has some impressive elements not limited to the wit and inspired silliness contributed by Woody. Peter O'Toole had already done Lawrence of Arabia, Becket and Lord Jim before this silly little farce, which was a cool and slick showcase of his range. He plays a strapping, earnest young man who struggles to remain faithful to his fiancé but cannot seem to avoid women who want to sleep with him. Peter Sellers plays his analyst, a Deutsche pervert who hates his nagging, brutish wife and proposes to follow his patient O'Toole and "study his behavior." Sellers provides one of his most hilarious performances, making it seem so easy to alternately embellish and subdue his Germanic caricature while completely inhabiting his ridiculous '60s swinger get-up.

So this is a classic screwball sex comedy of its time and captures the era not in the material, or even in production value, but in sight and sound. The movie was a box-office success, appealing of course to date moviegoers and mainstream audiences who saw the names Peter O'Toole, Peter Sellers, Capucine, Ursula Andress, Tom Jones and Burt Bacharach, but also, surely, to those who were cynical of the gender double-standard as well as Sellers' Teutonic psychiatrist. But yeah, definitely well worth a look, full of laughs.

Paula Prentiss Steals The Show

[gftbiloxi · 5/10 · 3 February 2008]

WHAT'S NEW, PUSSYCAT? was a popular ticket in 1965--but when seen outside the context of its era it emerges as a slightly choppy, slightly slapdash film long on froth and short on actual amusement.

Originally written by Woody Allen as a vehicle for Warren Beatty, both script and cast underwent a mighty change before it reached the screen, so much so that the experience prompted Allen to swear he'd never allow any one but himself to direct one of his scripts in the future. The story revolves around Michael James (Peter O'Toole), a handsome man who wants to marry Carol (Romy Schneider) but can't stop sleeping around long enough to make a commitment. He accordingly goes to psychiatrist Dr. Fritz Fassbender (Peter Sellers)--who is a sex-crazed nut in pursuit of patient Renee (Capucine.) Before the dust settles Woody Allen, Paula Prentiss, Ursla Andress, and Edra Gale are added to the mix.

O'Toole and Sellers are hardly challenged by the material and Allen introduces his "I'm a New York neurotic" screen persona for the first time--but it is really the abundance of supporting actresses that give the film what little zing it still retains. Romy Schnieder was among Europe's greatest stars and finest actresses of her era; although the script offers her little, she is charming indeed. Much the same can be said of the legendary Capucine in the role of a world-weary nymphomaniac; Ursula Andress, who arrives in the film via parachute, and bovine Edra Gale, who runs riot in Wagnerian attire. But the real scene stealer is Paula Prentiss.

Although extremely attractive, Prentiss was originally typed as a "second lead" of the Eve Arden type--but she quickly graduated to neurotic comedy roles for which she had a truly unique flair. WHAT'S NEW, PUSSYCAT? finds her at the top of her form as the interestingly-named Liz Bien, who writes bad poetry, has a tendency to overdose on pills every time she goes to the bathroom, and who attaches herself to the much-harassed Peter O'Toole. It really is a performance that transcends the material and which lingers in the mind long after the credits roll.

The DVD release is third rate, with mediocre visual elements and sound so uneven that I constantly adjusted the volume as I watched. When all is said and done, this is really a film for hardcore fans of its various stars--and especially for Paula Prentiss. If for no other reason, the film is worth watching for her alone.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Feather-light entertainment

[corvinello · 10/10 · 28 August 2007]

Some have "analyzed" this (movie) with the heavy, combat-boot tone of the cerebral and moral second-millennium spirit. They say it belongs to the past, the bad bad bad 60s, full of irresponsibility and partying, sexual license and depravity.

Well I say HA! --- HA! HA!

Forget all those (mostly young!) preachers and dive into a silly, inconsequential, wacky movie, full of unrealistic characters doing unrealistic things. It is colorful, full of joy and beautiful people, unpretentious and charming. And in the end, the guy gets the girl and they get married.

As a young boomer, watching this is like slipping into Hush Puppies. You may say what you want about or against the "guilty" innocence of that era, but it sure was comfortable! I miss those times. And a note for the moderns: we were not that innocent, we knew that some of this was dangerous ground... but what do you know, living is the thing that makes you die.

Sloppy (if occasionally amusing) mess.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 29 November 1999]

"What's New, Pussycat" marks the writing and acting debut of Woody Allen; as an actor, he clearly steals the show, and he has a couple of hilarious scenes. Peter O'Toole is agreeable in a somewhat self-parodying role, but Peter Sellers is really disappointing in this film, constantly overacting and earning very few laughs. Allen's screenplay has some witty lines but generally it's a complete and utter mess - in a way that gives the film an feeling of sloppiness. There are a few chuckles in this movie, but it's very dated, and as comedy it can best be described as highly uneven. And I didn't understand if the sets were intentionally so fake-looking.

Only for the Masochistic

[dmc197807 · 1/10 · 26 December 2009]

I like to rank movies on a basis of whether I'd pay to see them in a theater, pay to rent them from a video store, borrow them from a library collection, or simply watch them on free cable. What's New Pussycat qualifies for none of the above. It is a poorly edited, poorly conceived "romp" filled with overacting, lame jokes (fortunately Woody Allen got better) and stupidity. It's like one of those SNL skits that should have never been aired. Trying to watch this movie last night was like having a root canal, without the anesthetic. Many films age poorly (MASH, or Easy Rider) but it's hard to imagine that this "romp" was even viewable back in the day. Just take one look at Peter Sellers' wig in the opening scene and the camera work and that's all you need to know about what's coming up. It's a dog's breakfast.

Most hilarious sex comedy of the 60's.

[xander-42 · 10/10 · 20 November 2000]

First movie written by Woody Allen, What's New Pussycat is probably the most hilarious sex comedy of the 60's. The cast is incredible, the script excellent as well as the music written by Burt Bacharach, who has worked several times for the Karl Feldman (e.g. Casino Royale).

The movie is focused on the emotional problems of Michael James (Peter O'Toole) who's not ready to get engaged with Carol (Romy Schneider) for fear to have to renounce to the adventure with other girls. To resolve his problem, he will consult Dr Fassbender (Peter Sellers) a psychiatrist that is actually a sex maniac, incredibly envious a the success of Michael. Peter Sellers is wonderfully hilarious in this role and prove again that he is an excellent actor often under exploited. The movie has also loads of secondary characters that will made you cry with laughter : Victor plays by Woody Allen, hilarious as usual, Renee (Capucine) the nymphomaniac, Anna the wagnerian singer (Eddra Gale) or the sex symbol Ursula Andress.

The only thing you could reproach this movie is the poor direction by Clive Donner but this not a great deal in comparison to the hilarious Woody Allen's screenplay and cast of wonderful actors.

Wacky But Not Wonderful

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 8 September 2015]

Woody Allen is a funny guy. He has written some great lines for film and print. But in the early years of his cinematic career, he wrote a few films that might be called juvenile. This is one of those films.

"What's New, Pussycat?" feels like the convergence of "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." It has a wonderful cast, but if you want to see Romy Schneider, Capucine, Peter Sellers, Peter O'Toole or Woody Allen himself, there are better films that showcase their talents. I hope the cast had plenty of fun making this romp, so there is justification for its existence. Otherwise, I find it to a tiresome, unoriginal sequence of scenes done better elsewhere.

The plot is thin, concerning the central character, Michael James (Peter O'Toole), who is a womanizer. He is lucky enough to have beautiful women drop into his lap, but most of them are hopeless flirts, nymphomaniacs and one-dimensional parodies of the 60's liberated woman. Good bedroom farces don't need wacky music to be funny and are based upon more than people inconveniently bumping into each other.

The film is not a total waste. There are a few really good lines. And it is populated with plenty of female beauty. But it would be a few years yet until Woody Allen would write his best work. "What's New Pussycat?" was his first filmic venture. "Sleeper" would follow eight years later in 1973. In 1977, his writing talent would take a substantial leap with "Annie Hall."

What's Old, Pussycat?

[JamesHitchcock · 4/10 · 12 February 2010]

"What's New Pussycat?" is the world's first Woody Allen film. Although Woody didn't direct it, he wrote the script and acted in it in his big screen debut. It is a typical product of the swinging sixties, frequently being described as a sex comedy, a genre which first saw the light of day during that decade, although it is less erotic than that description might suggest. After all, the Production Code was officially still in force in 1965 (it was not finally abandoned until 1968) and the permissive society was still in its infancy, so there is a lot of talk about sex but no nudity and no explicit bedroom scenes. Even so, it is difficult to imagine a film like this being made in 1955, or even 1960.

The main character is a young man named Michael James, a British-born fashion magazine editor working in Paris. Michael is a notorious womaniser, but has fallen in love with a girl named Carole with whom he wants to settle down. Although Michael and Carole are engaged, he finds that he is still irresistible to women and finds that he is unable to resist their attentions when they throw themselves at him. Michael turns to his psychiatrist Fritz Fassbender, but Fassbender proves to be no help, largely because he himself is far madder than any of his patients. There is also a sub-plot about Michael's friend Victor, who is also in love with Carole and who unsuccessfully attempts to seduce her.

Rumour has it that the character of Michael was based on the love life of Warren Beatty; the title was supposedly Beatty's favourite greeting to his girlfriends. (Michael addresses every girl he meets as "pussycat"). Beatty was originally to have played the role but withdrew owing to creative differences with Woody Allen, and was replaced by Peter O'Toole. (Presumably Michael was an American in the original version of the script). When Woody appears in one of his own films he normally takes the leading role, but here he appears in a supporting one, that of Victor. Although Victor is only a secondary character, he is nevertheless a typical Woody creation, a wisecracking, angst-ridden self-doubting neurotic who is clearly the spiritual ancestor of most of the characters Woody was to play over the next few years, such as Fielding Mellish in "Bananas", Boris Grushenko in "Love and Death" and Alvy Singer in "Annie Hall".

Despite this spiritual relationship, however, "What's New, Pussycat?" is not in the same class as most of the films Woody was to make over the next few years. To me Peter O'Toole never really seems really comfortable with comedy, but Woody and Peter Sellers could, at their best, be two of the greatest comic actors in cinema history. Unfortunately, neither is at their best here. Woody's performance as Victor is not too bad, if not in the same class as some of his later roles, but Sellers is here at his self-indulgent worst, assuming that a foreign accent and a silly wig are all that is needed to make his character funny. By 1965 Sellers was a major international star, having created Inspector Clouseau in "The Pink Panther" and three great characters in "Dr Strangelove", but in this film he seems to have been resting on his laurels.

The female side of the cast have little to do beyond looking glamorous and portraying one-dimensional caricatures- sweet young thing (Romy Schneider), formidable battleaxe (Edra Gale), man-hungry nympho (Capucine and Ursula Andress) and suicidal depressive (Paula Prentiss).

The script is not particularly funny, either. Michael- handsome, successful, self-confident- is very different from the average Woody Allen hero, and Woody does not seem to have been very inspired by the idea of writing a story centred upon him. (The main cause of Woody's dispute with Beatty was, apparently, that Woody kept rewriting the script to make Victor's part more prominent). In most of Woody's successful films he manages to combine humour with other, more serious, elements, such as philosophical explorations or analysis of human relationships. Even early films like "Bananas" and "Sleeper", sometimes regarded as "pure" comedies, contain some sharp political satire. There is nothing like that in "What's New, Pussycat?", which suffers from a defect common to a lot of sixties sex comedies- the assumption that, because references to sex are "daring" and "permissive" they must also be witty. (Clive Donner was to direct another film like this, "Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush", two years later). In 1965 you could perhaps get away with an assumption like this. Forty-five years later you can't. The best thing about the film is Tom Jones' title song; the rest of it looks so dated that it should be renamed "What's Old, Pussycat?" 4/10

Woody Allen's worst.

[fedor8 · 7 January 2007]

One joke after another bombs in this overly silly and utterly dull comedy. The joke vacuum is all the more irritating considering the familiar cast. However, likable as they may be, the actors are far from saving this film. Probably Woody Allen's most hopeless script. The finish, with the car chase and the chaos, is as boring and unfunny as it gets (and Benny Hill has done this sort of thing much better). But hardly surprising, considering how few good comedies came out in the 60s. The "Animal House" of the 60s, you could say; popular (I assume) but uninspired. The Swinging 60s have rarely been duller.

Of course, if you enjoyed movies like "Police Academy 3", "Animal House", or "1941", disregard my comments and have a ball with this mess.

Loved the cast, Hated the movie

[klaatu-10 · 6/10 · 20 March 2000]

I really wanted to like this movie because of all the great actors. However, it is a totally awful movie. Maybe it was meant to be and was just a showcase for some really awesome talent.

Woody Allen proved to be hilarious in his first starring role. Paula Prentiss was one of the best comediennes of the 1960s. She's definitely the best thing in the movie. Peter Sellers did as good as he could. European beauties Romy Schneider and Capucine were OK. Capucine was a tragic figure with classic French looks and an aloof persona. Ursula Andress has got to be one of the sexiest women of any generation to appear on celluloid. Not much talent, but she didn't need it. Alas, Peter O'Toole was totally miscast in his attempt at comedy. He did much better years later in "My Favorite Year"

But hey, the opening credits were pretty good. And who could not like Tom Jones warbling the title song.

The sex kittens of Paris can-can - and do!

[ShadeGrenade · 7/10 · 15 November 2010]

During the '60's, the late Clive Donner made several modish comedies, of which 'What's New Pussycat' is probably the best known because it marked the acting/writing debut of Woody Allen. Its theme - 20th century Man's never-ending preoccupation with sex - is one Allen returned to in later films. Peter O'Toole plays 'Michael James', editor of Parisian fashion magazine 'Chic'. Everywhere he goes, incredibly beautiful women are willing to leap into his bed. He wants to marry the lovely Carole ( Romy Schneider ), but cannot bring himself to propose because he faces too much temptation. He goes to psychiatrist Dr.Fritz Fassbinder ( Peter Sellers ). The good doctor is madder than many of his patients. Envious of Michael's way with women, he begs him to help him bed a patient called Renee Lefebvre ( Capucine )...

Anyone familiar with Woody's later movies might be startled on viewing 'Pussycat' for the first time. It is a film Woody later came to despise, mainly because his script was altered by the stars, particularly O'Toole and Sellers. As well as exploiting the myth of Paris as the 'sex capital of the world', there is a 'Goon Show' flavour to some of the humour; at a strip club, Michael finds Fassbinder in the audience. Embarrassed, the doctor says he followed him there. When Michael points out that he was there already, Fassbinder says: "I followed you fast'.". Woody originally wanted the film to be more like a Marx Brothers romp, and wrote the part of 'Fassbinder' with Groucho in mind. Producer Charles K.Feldman had other ideas. Sellers was a hot property in the States thanks to 'Dr.Strangelove' and other pictures. Clad in a reject Nana Mouskouri wig and sporting a bogus Teutonic accent, he virtually shouts his way through the script. It is not one of his finest hours. O'Toole is miscast, bringing a heavy hand to what should have been a light role. It is hard to see why all these women find him so attractive ( and no, I'm not saying that out of jealousy! ). The main laughs come from Woody himself as Michael's geeky chum 'Victor Shakapopolis', who works in the local strip club dressing the girls before they go on stage. "Ten francs a week", he tells an astonished Michael. "That's not much!". Victor replies: "Its all I can afford!". In a very funny scene, Victor is with Carole ( whom he hopes to bed ) in a library when a thug snatches away her book. Victor sets about trying to teach the thug a lesson. Another has Michael and Carole having a row at the language school where she works, and the class start repeating their insults in the belief it is part of the lesson. Here we get a glimpse of the Allen comedies to come, such as 'Take The Money & Run' and 'Bananas'. Also good is Paula Prentiss as neurotic stripper 'Liz Bien' ( think about that name for a second ) who keeps trying to kill herself every five minutes. Her strip tease routine is genuinely erotic and thrilling ( though we see nothing we shouldn't! )

Things To Look Out For - a walk-on from O'Toole's 'Becket' co-star - Richard Burton!

With its distinctive Richard Williams Studios credits, Tom Jones theme song ( other numbers in the film were by Dionne Warwick and Manfred Mann ) by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, the film was a massive hit. But for my money it comes across as forced, with everyone enjoying themselves a bit too much. The finale takes place at Château Chantelle, and has the cast chasing each other Tom & Jerry style, culminating in a go-kart scene that seems to be there only because someone thought a go-kart chase would liven up the film at that point. If Allen's ideas had been adhered to, the whole thing might have been better. Nevertheless, it is interesting from a historical perspective as an early example of the trendy sex comedy. It could not have been made five years earlier.

Popping up near the end ( she parachutes into Michael's car ) is Ursula Andress - the first 'Bond' girl - as 'Rita'. She, along with Sellers, O'Toole and Allen, reunited for Feldman's next production - the even more outrageous 'Casino Royale'.

a Woody Allen scripted screwball sex comedy, and it works

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 15 June 2007]

This swinging' 60s comedy of crazy manners was Woody Allen's first screenplay produced- with himself playing a role that he definitely wrote specifically for himself- and it shows how a writer can pour out all idea into one form and make it work, sort of. It's all over the place and not altogether successful, but I liked it. It's a screwball farce about a perpetual womanizer (Peter O'Toole) who can't keep one woman walking on another let alone one woman alone. Therapy doesn't help either, as his therapist (Peter Seller, hilarious in a stupid haircut) is as addicted as he is. Soon it's all out blitzkrieg of women, from one end to another, and it's a laugh (almost) a minute. It does veer on becoming more than a tad confusing- which woman is which? Maybe one can tell the difference on repeat viewings, on who O'Toole is surprised to see next, who may (or may not) be the one who wants to marry him, and who he may pick up at random in night, with or without Sellers's unconventional doctor, and spend the night with.

Some jokes just fly over one's head, as they're meant to be fast as hell with the dialog and a little strange with the physical movements. O'Toole, in an odd way, is even more apt at playing a clumsy yet successful womanizer than he was at playing an epic hero in Lawrence of Arabia. Sellers, donning an accent similar to that of his Dr. Strangelove character, is dependably nutty as the doctor who tries his best to help out his patients, but is almost too desperate- i.e. suicide attempt- and finally comes around back to the screwball fold. There's not much of a plot, but it doesn't matter; as long as you know what to expect- O'Toole and company (including a first-timer klutz Allen who gets one woman to fall asleep on him with the drink he fixes her!) are up to the challenge of making a silly farce that has aged only somewhat decently. It's not really a 'must-see', but for fans of the actors, specifically Sellers and Allen (who share a great scene on a riverbank), it's worth the while of a couple of hours with a few drinks.

Woody Allen-scripted vehicle for the two Peters is completely out of gas

[moonspinner55 · 2/10 · 2 August 2002]

Surprisingly flat comedy about a girl-crazy fashion magazine editor and his eccentric psychiatrist, and their adventures with mini-skirted birds. Peter O'Toole is game but miscast; Peter Sellers, in an exaggerated Beatles wig, seems constricted by the mostly unfunny screenplay, his personality never coming to a full boil. Glossy, pseudo-naughty, but unfunny picture, which doesn't even capture the Swinging '60s with much appeal. Directed by Clive Donner with assistance from Richard Talmadge; written by Woody Allen, who also makes his movie debut. The title song, sung by Tom Jones, may be the most memorable thing in it. *1/2 from ****

Peter Sellers - Under Appreciated - Under Recognized

[stuneiman · 10/10 · 2 March 2004]

What's New Pussycat makes no pretense of being anything other than what it seems on the surface. Peter O'toole holds the lead in a high energy performance consistent with the times that the film represents and was made in. It is Peter Sellers who, once again, steals the screen as the whacked-out Dr. Fritz Fasbender. His performance is classically neurotic "Sellers," with one of his best bavarian (austrian, german - whatever) accents which makes the character. Fans of the Austin Powers series are well served in seeing this film for the influences it produces some 30 years later. Ultimate this is a very funny period piece, uncharacteristically written by Woody Allen (who also co-stars in the film). One of the best scenes of the film occurs between Allen and Sellers as Allen interrupts Sellers Overly Dramatic Suicide with an annual dinner ritual. The humor is raw, the move is fun and should be taken at face value. For Peter Sellers fans this film is a MUST.

wouldn't you love to be Michael James

[$conan$ · 6/10 · 3 April 1999]

This is probably one of the funniest movies to come from the 1960's. Woody Allen really should have directed it though, It would have been even better. Allen felt that the picture didn't go the way he planned it. After this film he decided to direct all of his own pictures from then on. The gags in the film resemble that of Buster Keaton and Groucho Marx. It is evident that Allen was influenced tremendously by these two men. The scene whee everyone piles into the room is reminiscent of the scene in the Marx brothers film Room Service. And near the end when they are all on go-cars looks as though it could have been done by Buster Keaton. All in all this is a tremendously funny film I couldn't keep from laughing out loud. Peter O'Toole was absolutely fabulous in the role as Michael James. It just showed that he could do a little more than Lawrence of Arabia.

Woody Sex Farce Winds Up Flaccid

[slokes · 4/10 · 3 May 2010]

Watching Peter Sellers playing a lust-crazed German shrink amid gorgeous women, Swinging-Sixties ambiance, and a sparkling Burt Bacharach score should make for a fast-flowing breeze. But herky-jerky direction and a surprisingly amateurish script by first-time filmwriter and actor Woody Allen render "What's New Pussycat" hard to take.

Billed a sex farce when it came out in 1965, and rather ahead of its time in that regard, the film presents us with the singular torment of Michael James (Peter O'Toole), a prisoner of his killer charisma who wants to be faithful to lover Carole (Romy Schneider) but can't say no to the many felines who purr for his attention. His analyst Dr. Fassbender (Sellers) and friend Victor (Allen) watch in jealous rage.

Sellers was just coming off a near-fatal heart attack, and maybe trying too hard to show he still had game. As Fassbender he leaps, shrieks, rolls on the carpet, yet still seems half the man he was in films like "Waltz Of The Toreadors" and "The Millionairess". He's amusing but underrealized with lines that stretch for laughs he doesn't always get. "You're a monster, and a monster in that order," he bellows at his heavy-set wife. Huh?

O'Toole was a sensation at this time from more serious roles; seeing him cut up like this, slamming his skull against doors and slipping off stairs, was a revelation and a marker for later comic turns in better films. Here, he struggles with a role conceived for Warren Beatty, looking almost constipated as one lovely after another drapes herself over him. "Women have always overcome my basic shyness," he explains.

Allen was the new guy here, and for that you almost want to cut him some slack. He could have done worse for a first script, like say "Stardust Memories" or "Hollywood Ending". But watching Woody trying to be funny can be almost as painful as watching him try to be serious. "This can't work," he has one early conquest tell Michael. "I'm 34 and you're 12."

A more central problem than the three mentioned above were two others behind the camera. Director Clive Donner kills some of the funnier bits with lame blocking (an opening featuring Fassbinder and his wife arguing in a series of dizzying zoom shots sets the chaotic tone) and allows O'Toole to be lit so green at times he appears malarial.

Producer Charles K. Feldman seemed more interested in creating "happenings" than films, throwing together talents at random and letting whatever they came up with dictate the final product. In one scene we watch a badly overacting Allen try to kill O'Toole in a sauna, yet the next scene has O'Toole alive and dry in an unrelated group-psychoanalysis scene. I can't write about the ending, not because it would be a spoiler, but because I have no idea what it was about. Neither will you.

There's a handful of witty lines in "Pussycat", sometimes even two in a row. That Bacharach/Hal David music is tremendous listening. Tom Jones scored the hit title song, but the songs "Here I Am" (Dionne Warwick) and "My Little Red Book" (Manfred Mann) are even better, the latter especially when danced to by the gorgeous Paula Prentiss.

Prentiss is the most beautiful woman I've seen in movies - until she opens her mouth. You could say that "Pussycat" suffers from a similar issue, pretty from a distance, annoying close-up. It has so much sex appeal, it's almost angering how casually it disappoints.

Pussycat-after almost 40 years...

[magistre · 9/10 · 17 August 2005]

Yes, after almost 40 years this movie is a little dated; but, when it came out it was hilariously off-the-wall! The movie, when it was released was a refreshing, non-conformist poke-in-the-eye to the prigs and prudes of the day. At that time, people were used to "Doris Day" and the list from the Catholic church. Yes, I know, in this age, little if anything is left to the imagination. At that time, everything was left to the imagination. Consider the times. The ad-libbed bar scene between O'Toole and Sellers was brilliant besides being hilarious. And then there is the interplay among the members of Dr. Fassbender's and his patients and Dr. Fassbender and his family.

Look Again! It's Great!!!

[davidbaldwin-11838 · 7/10 · 3 November 2019]

Worth a good 7.5 in my refreshed view. Just viewed on dvd, having not seen this since its cinema appearance in 1965....when I found it amusing...but patchy and indulgent. I think it was a film before its time. A great reminder of how fast, able and imaginative Peter O'Toole was and his scenes with the hilarious Peter Sellers are adorable...so good together. This is no easy little workmanlike drama. There is is so much achieved in every way in this fabulous full-on farce. There is great-good hard work going on behind the scenes here. It resulted in a rich and lovely offering. Thank you, team!

The sum of all the parts just doesn't work all that well...

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 16 January 2011]

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.