bigverybadtom Whatever you think of Woody Allen and his movies, his later ones were certainly better than this one. This was supposed to be the biggest hit of 1965 (the year I was born) and is now considered "dated" by many critics. Actually, I prefer to believe that even in 1965 it was not considered to be great either.The story is about a playboy whom women find irresistibly attractive-namely flirts, nymphomaniacs, etc. and he in turn cannot resist their advances Which is bad because he wants to settle down and marry his fiancée. So what does he do? Consult with a psychiatrist who is messed up in his own right.The movie is meant to be a screwball farce, but it's crazy without being very funny. People run around, bump into each other, and a big chase scene in the end as was common in comedy movies of the day. But ultimately in substitutes silliness for real wit. It's like a mediocre Keystone Comedy that's not family entertainment. You'd get more laughs out of a standard Three Stooges movie.

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.

leonblackwood Review: I know that this is a popular classic with film goers, but I found it a bit silly and not that funny. You can tell that the screenplay was done by Woody Allen because of the strange humour and the sexual content, but as it wasn't directed by Allen, he didn't get the leading role like most of his movies. I did find Peter Sellers quite funny, in a silly type of way, and Peter O'Toole puts in a great performance as the womaniser who was addicted to the chase, but the movie goes a bit to far and I found it slightly over the top. Any man would love loads of women falling at there feet, but this movie proves that it can cause many problems which are hard to get out of. When Peter O'Toole decides to call it a day to is womanising and settle for the woman that he truly loves, all of his previous conquests start coming out of the woodwork which causes havoc for his relationship. It's not the greatest storyline and the director did over exaggerate the point, but there are some funny scenes which are worth a watch. Average!Round-Up: I remember watching this film when I was young and I found it a bit hard to keep up with, but now that I'm older, I still didn't find it that great. Like a lot of Woody Allen's scripts, he manages to get his leg over, after failing so many times, but as he's not the main character, Peter O'Toole beds many beautiful women throughout the movie. I know that Woody Allen was really upset that he didn't get to direct this movie , but maybe it was a good idea by the studio because it would have been completely different. Anyway, I'm impressed with Woody Allen because this was his second movie after the strange What's Up, Tiger Lily, but its still weird humour that I'm struggling to find funny.Budget: $18million Worldwide Gross: N/AI recommend this movie to people who are into there Woody Allen scripts about a womaniser who finds it hard to get married because he can't resist beautiful women. 3/10

Edgar Soberon Torchia Written by Woody Allen, "What's New Pussycat" is emblematic of the sexual behavior of the middle 1960s, a sample of op and pop art designs, and a blend of cinematic influences, from Lubitsch to Fellini (including not only a parody of the harem scene from "8 1/2" but also an actress from that film, Eddra Gale, as Sellers' wife, Anna Fassbender). Not as successful as it could have been (although it was a financial hit), the film is actually more noise than Lubitsch and more pastiche than Fellini, due mainly to Allen's typical patchy early scripts. The cast is more than capable, but you often feel Peter O'Toole and Peter Sellers are struggling with their parts, that Romy Schneider's role is more inclined to domesticity than to the 1960s changing mores, and that Ursula Andress is only part of the exotic décor. But Capucine and most of all Paula Prentiss (wearing mod clothes specially designed for her) are very funny, Capucine as Renee Lefebvre, a nymphomaniac who dominates her husband (and everybody, with a whistle), and Prentiss as Liz Bien, a poetess turned stripteaser with suicidal tendencies. Prentiss is so good here, that I have always wondered why Allen never made another film with her. She seemed like a very good match back in 1965, but they don't even cross a word in the film, although both work in the Crazy Horse Saloon. Maybe the crazy film persona she established in "Pussycat" resulted too outré and weird compared to Allen's New York neurotic with a bag of jokes that are often unfunny (like his attempts at seducing Schneider and Katrin Schaake). Nevertheless, to round up the package for our enjoyment, Burt Bacharach wrote the score and the hit title song; Tom Jones, Dionne Warwick, and Manfred Mann sang in the soundtrack, Richard Burton (as a patron in the Crazy Horse Saloon) and French pop singer Françoise Hardy (as a secretary in the last scene) made uncredited cameos, and animator Richard Williams (two decades before "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?") designed the opening credits.