Watch it at Amazon
30 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :- Enjoy irresponsibly, 20 May 2005 Author: Medium Lebowski from off in my own little world
"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.
27 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :- Forests and trees, 11 June 2005 Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City
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.
21 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :- Most hilarious sex comedy of the 60's., 20 November 2000 Author: Alexander William (xander@altern.org) from London, England
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.
13 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :- Peter Sellers - Under Appreciated - Under Recognized, 2 March 2004 Author: Stuart Neiman (stuneiman@mindspring.com) from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
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.
17 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :- Pussycat-after almost 40 years..., 17 August 2005 Author: magistre from United States
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.
10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :- Sellers on top form!, 21 January 2005 Author: hawk-275
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
This is a great film, but one you'll buy for the cast alone. Woody Allen and Peter Sellers in a film together?! Sellers is beautiful in this comic gem of a movie, fully immersed in the colourful 60s. Seller's ability to deliver his lines with that characteristic jaundiced, vague, sexually pre-occupied way, is fully exploited in what is a great role for him.O'Toole is surprisingly good as the over-sexed Gent who cant commit. He's convincing and funny.All this is matched by a superb supporting cast, in particular Paula Prentiss, who is exceptional for such a small amount of screen time.Woody's first outing is uninspired at best. As usual, Woody has some great ideas, but they are shot through with a combination of bad execution and plain miscalculation. For instance , the scene where Woody is miming badly to the Italian Opera record is too contrived; too 'Woody'. Too often we are forced to watch Woody Allen play himself and just arse about on set and we are expected to laugh. This is Woody's problem. He has no versatility, unlike Sellers who could play just about anyone. As a writer and director, Allen has superb talent. But his comedy acting abilities come no where near, and this film displays it.Highlights: Paula Prentiss (wow!) O'Toole and Sellers in the Nightclub scene dancing to 'My Little Red Book'. Delightful.O'Toole's reply: "What in the name of all that's gracious, is a semi-virgin?" O'Toole and Seller's drunk as they try to woo Miss Lefebvre O'Toole's nightmare where Sellers appears as Richard III. So apt! Very funny.If you can't stand classic comedy films, you will probably hate this film. One because the story is so screwy and two because it is 'of the time'. But if you can look beyond the 60s haze and realise what a special, landmark piece of comedy artwork this film really is, you will have made an indispensable addition to your movie collection.
7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- Sloppy (if occasionally amusing) mess., 29 November 1999 Author: gridoon
"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.
8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :- Feather-light entertainment, 28 August 2007 Author: Corvin Ello from Canada
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.
9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :- Swinging 60's Sex Romp!!, 27 April 2004 Author: Christopher (mrcaw1@hotmail.com) from New York
What's New Pussycat? (1965) As a sex maniac psychologist, Peter Sellers creates one of the funniest characterizations achieved in the 1960s. Half the cast goes to him to be treated for, what else? Sexual addiction! Peter O'Toole is his primary patient, who earns his reputation as a smooth sophisticated playboy by cheating on the delicious Romy Schneider (taken from us tragically too soon) with: Capuccine, Paula Prentis and Bond-icon Ursula Andress!Lots of groovy chicks, groovy guys, Pucci dresses, romps in out-of-the-way hotels and the incomparable Herb Albert and the Tijuana Brass soundtrack with Tom Jones thrown in for good measure. It's a fine and fitting debut for Woody Allen, who acts as both writer and supporting cast member. With Casino Royale, this is one of the screwballiest comedies of the '60s.
5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Michael James: "Pussycat from the sky, I can't resist you", 29 April 2007 Author: Galina from Virginia, USA
"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
Add another comment
