Dalbert Pringle After watching 1965's "What's New, Pussycat?" ("WNP?", for short), which has often been so smugly touted as being the absolute epitome of the "Swinging 60s", I am now thoroughly convinced that that particular era in pop culture history was, in reality, a total farce.To say that "WNP?" actually turned out to be even worse than I had at first imagined would truly be an understatement. In fact, "WNP?" was purr-fectly awful for the most part.Not only was Peter Sellers (wearing a hideously stupid-looking wig) completely asinine as the lecherous psychiatrist, Fritz Fassbender - But, Woody Allen's screenplay (his first) was filled to overflowing with a humongous dung-heap of misfired gags and one-liners that were, literally, so funny that I forgot to laugh.To be honest - "WNP?'s" opening sequence actually did show some really promising potential. But once the story stepped beyond this point it got itself so annoyingly bogged down with one of the most demented "on-again/off-again" relationships between a man and a woman ever conceived in movie history.With its almost-unbearable 2-hour running time, "WNP?" not only repeatedly cried out for some serious editing, but it also begged for some major story reconstruction, as well.

Ru Sil I wouldn't have guessed that Peter O'Toole has such a talent for comedy. Under a messy appearance, the movie, which is one of my favorites, has a clever and funny script. It's one of the best comments on marriage and monogamy, and it benefits from talented actors who, above all, seem to be having fun in their roles. Their enjoyment is transmitted to the viewers, and so it is a genuinely "feel-good" movie. Part sophisticated comedy, part slapstick, "What's New Pussycat" is a wild experience only for those with a strong sense of humor. It never fails to put me in a good mood. The soundtrack is fabulous! Peter O'Toole in his gorgeous forest green jacket is unforgettable.

CinefanR Hilarious, charming and over the top.Written as an ironic commentary on marriage and monogamy, "What's New Pussycat" makes fun of all the clichés and absurdities that men and women say and do to each other in a romantic context. It's all there: misconceptions about marriage, clichés about what a man or woman is supposed/expected to do in certain situations, the absurdity of people's expectations in regard to their partner and so on. The script is really clever and it does succeed to make some valid points on these issues. What's interesting is how it switches from sophisticated comedy to slapstick and vice versa. The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic, by Burt Bacharach, Dionne Warwick and Tom Jones (why is this out of print?)– I actually envy people living in that era. All the actors seem to really enjoy themselves and have tremendous fun with their parts. Shakespearean actor Peter O'Toole makes an unexpected shift and it's a rare delight to watch and listen to him in such a different role. I had no idea he could be so funny.You're in for some great one-liners and priceless reactions from Peter O'Toole, a funny cameo from Richard Burton, drunken serenades, a crazy dream sequence, hysterical psychotherapy sessions where patients recall their sexual history and much more.If you don't have the sense of humor to appreciate this movie, at least you must have the sense of fashion to appreciate Peter O'Toole in that fabulous forest-green jacket. That alone makes it worth watching.

James Hitchcock "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