User reviews

Let there be no doubt that Peter Sellers would be an enormously difficult part to play. He has to be one of the few actors in film history who is more complex than the characters he played. (unless one considers actors such as Paul Walker... let me rephrase that, one of the few TALENTED actors) And it would be hard to imagine the man who is still infamously remembered as Inspector Clouseau from the Pink Panther series being played in as flawless a manor as by Geoffrey Rush here. He wasn't the most obvious choice to play Peter Sellers, but he proved to be the wisest one. The man deserves countless praises, not only for playing Sellers himself to perfection, but also for flawlessly re-creating pretty much every film and radio role Sellers ever played, from Dr. Strangelove to Chance the gardener to Clouseau himself. (beginning in a hilarious sequence on an airplane when Sellers hassles an airline stewardess in Clouseau character) But it doesn't stop there - all throughout his life (or at least so shown here) Sellers struggled with the notion that despite the rampant personalities of his screen personas, Peter the man never really had much of a personality himself. To show this, Sellers reenacts sequences of his real life with himself playing different characters. It is in these delusional sequences that Rush shows his true mastery - he doesn't give us "Geoffrey Rush as Peter Sellers' mother", he gives us "Geoffrey Rush as Peter Sellers as Peter Sellers' mother". Words can't describe the amount of recognition Geoffrey Rush deserves, and a solitary Golden Globe simply doesn't do him justice.

Despite the fact that virtually the whole show centers around Rush and his masterful performance, he is backed up by a strong supporting cast and crew. Director Stephen Hopkins was also an odd choice for the project, given his past credentials ("Lost in Space"? "Predator 2"?)but he proves to have the cheeky sense of humour the film needed to be taken seriously, starting off with a surreal 60's style animation sequence with Sellers showing clips from his own life. And it's nice to see some higher profile actors taking the back seat here, such as Charlize Theron, delightfully ditzy and yet not quite a parody as Sellers' airheaded second wife Britt Eckland. Emily Watson brings class and understated strength to her role as Ann, Sellers' first wife, and, as we are led to believe, the only woman he ever truly loved. (despite the fact he left her and their children to pursue a relationship with Sophia Loren which never happened) Stanley Tucci plays Stanley Kubrick in a brief yet important role during the filming of Dr. Strangelove - his eyes showed what his words could not: how irresponsible and hazardous to he production he perceived Sellers to be. Miriam Margoyles, better known as Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter series is formidable as Peter's domineering, manipulative mother, portrayed as the main reason for Sellers' fractured state of reality. And John Lithgow is an excellent Blake Edwards, blending his eternal optimism and energy with a sense of self pride, which he is forced to swallow, asking Sellers to return for numerous Pink Panther sequels. Lithgow, with his obnoxious laugh, is a constant high point throughout the film.

Yet, after the viewing is finished, the watcher feels strangely empty. Sure it looked classy, and it felt classy to watch, so why shouldn't it be classified as a great movie? Perhaps it's because 'The Life and Death of Peter Sellers' feels more like a series of snapshots, and not like a proper biography. We are presented with WHAT Sellers did in his lifetime, but never really shown WHY. There's an irritating lack of depth, which the viewer fails to notice during the movie, so captivated are we with Rush's wonderful acting. But when we reflect on the film afterwards, we realize that we still don't really know who Peter Sellers is. We know what he did, but not why he did it. This may be an intentional decision on Hopkins' part, because, as we are led to believe, Sellers didn't really understand himself that well. So no one really knew who Peter Sellers was... not even himself. And we should be content with that.

-8/10

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers has to be one of the most creative, complex and revealing non-documentary movies ever made about an actual person, living or dead, and the inspired casting of Geoffrey Rush is spot on - he's magnificent in all the various and sundry Sellers guises, especially the ones from Dr. Strangelove and The Pink Panther's bumbling inspector. The rest of the casting is excellent too, particularly Charlize Theron as the second "B.E." in Seller's life, Britt Ekland.

The thing I liked most about this movie was how the script let us see how Sellers created his characters - how he was constantly "in character" or inbetween characters. He admits in the movie to being an empty vessel, with no personality of his own; this is what allowed him to be such an insufferably cruel bastard to all the people who were closest to him: he used his immersive, endlessly obsessive artistic process as a weapon and, ultimately, as a substitute for being human.

It's always brutally hard as an artist to find the balance - you have to be true to your work, naturally, and as an actor especially you're constantly redefining your inner reality, but you can't do it at the expense of the people who love you and whom you profess to love; there has to be emotional and mental discipline otherwise you become psychotically self-indulgent, as this film showed Sellers to be. The most poignant scene in the movie for me was when Sellers, in his typically childish and deranged state, tells his little daughter, "I'm an empty shell, there's nobody inside," words to that effect, and she answers, with a sad wisdom that no child should have to learn to possess, "Yes, daddy."

Stephen Hopkins' "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" is a monumental film that undertook the difficult task of understanding the late Peter Sellers. This unique actor, with such a complicated personality and who lived such a turbulent life, comes alive in this HBO production based on the book by Roger Lewis, with an adaptation by Christopher Markus.

Peter Sellers covered quite a lot of ground during his life. He was one of the best actors working in the England of the fifties, working in all those charming comedies that made him a star in his native land, but alas, was not well known in America because he had not yet been hired by Hollywood until his "discovery" by director Blake Edwards, who offered him the part of Inspector Clouseau after Peter Ustinov had turned down the role.

Prior to his worldwide recognition, Mr. Sellers had to work a lot in order to make ends meet. Life with his first wife Anne came to an abrupt end, when he discovered she had fallen for the interior decorator the couple had hired. Then, there is the fascinating episode with Sophia Loren, in which Mr. Sellers, in his mind, begins to think he is in love with her, only to be rebuked by Ms. Loren, a woman who was happily married to Carlo Ponti, and had no desire to become the second Mrs. Sellers.

The third woman in Mr. Sellers life is the beautiful, but much younger, Britt Ekland. From the start, one can figure this union was not to last. The age difference and the different cultures indicate these two were completely mismatched, as we get to watch in painful detail how the marriage disintegrates.

Mr. Hopkins makes his star, Geoffrey Rush, assume a lot of roles in addition of the main one, Peter Sellers. Geoffrey Rush shows his versatility in playing them with great style. His biggest achievement seems to be how he captures the essence of Peter Sellers, the man, and expose him to us in all his complexity.

The acting is superb. Emily Watson and Charlize Theron are seen as Anne and Britt, two women that left their mark in the life of Mr. Sellers. Both are excellent in the film. Miriam Margoyles plays Peg Sellers. John Lighgow is Blake Edwards, the man who elevated the actor to an international acclaim.

The film is a documentary, as well as a biopic about this man who gave a lot of joy to movie fans through his films. Geoffrey Rush has to be thanked for bringing him to life, as well as the director, Stephen Hopkins for giving us an understanding on what it was to be Peter Sellers.

I'm a sap when it comes to movie watching so the peeling away of the character of Peter Sellers made the film a hard watch for me. That in no way implies anything derogatory about this wonderful film, just that Seller's life as depicted on the screen made me uncomfortable watching it as it unfolded before me.

Intellectually I can understand the forces driving Sellers but I find it difficult when these forces begin to devour the personality behind them as happened to Sellers throughout the film. You're left with those timeless questions about the price of greatness and with this movie you're left with even more than the viewer might be expected to deal with.

It was not pretty watching the Greek tragedy that was the life of Peter Sellers and now, having seen the movie only several hours ago, I have great respect for Rush and the director for having crafted such a brilliant film. I can't imagine another actor who could have brought Sellers to life so accurately. The film was far from straight forward-it pulsed and entwined itself around Seller's life such that the viewer was challenged constantly to involve themselves with the characters rather than being a dumb waiter between screen and viewer.

A tough, excellent film not to be missed.

Biopics are a devilish thing. Is as if the subject himself boycotted the operation from beyond the grave. The ultimate breach of privacy, isn't it? One feels like a voyeur, compelled and revolted at the same time. Goeffrey Rush's brilliant portrayal makes things even worse, I mean better, no I meant worse. A life of massive ups and downs for public consumption. Peter Sellers with a Cary Grant complex and a talent bigger than himself told in bits and pieces. To the ones who know about Sellers is a rather frustrating experience. Dr.Strangelove yes but not Lolita? The relationship with Blake Edwards deserves a movie of its own. The first massive heart attack was during Billy Wilder's "Kiss Me Stupid" but there is no mention of that. I know that to compress such a life without a structure within a two hour film it's an impossible task so what we're left with is a courageous attempt at tell us the sickly existence of one the greatest that ever was, a superlative performance by Goeffrey Rush, an astonishing Charlize Theron as Britt Eckland and very little else. I suppose that should be enough. Yes, it should, shouldn't it?

I never thought I'd find myself feeling sorry for Britt Ekland: this film of Peter Sellers' life and career achieved that. One must assume that many of the details are based in truth - his behaviour to his children in particular was awful.

There is no doubt that Sellers was an amazing talent, and troubled as so many are (Tony Hancock, for instance) - the toll that took on those closest to him must have been great.

But to the film: it's worth seeing for the extraordinary performance from Geoffrey Rush, uncannily portraying Sellers. There is fine support, in particular from John Lithgow as Blake Edwards, Miriam Margoyles as Sellers' mother, and Charlize Theron's Ekland.

Geoffrey Rush does a great Peter Sellers impersonation, and Emily Watson shines as his wife, but otherwise the film is a little hard to recommend. The events all seem a bit fragmented, the frantic editing and camera-work subtract, and nothing much is gained by the over-exposure either. But the narration of the film is where I feel it really sinks, with awkward bits of talking to the audience and surreal sequences that appear like they have just been thrown in to make it more attractive to the eye. Also, viewers should be cautioned that the only thing that Stanley Tucci has in common with his character, Stanley Kubrick, is the same first name. Still, the film has some interesting elements, such as the insight into film-making and the performances, as well as some genuinely funny parts… it is reasonably well made, but not brilliant.

The story begins with the Goons and ends just after his role in the movie, Being There, thirty years later. A lot of the film features recreations of famous moments in Seller's acting life, such as appearing on "The Goons" or in "The Pink Panther". There are some particularly hilarious insights into his development of the "Inspector Clouseau" character, including an explanation of why he ended up hating the character so much.

As such, it really only touches the surface of his life story, but it does give you an intense understanding of the character. A character which, in the style of Greek tragedy, had a major flaw. For me, the flaw was Seller's total lack of confidence, perhaps due to his appearance, which he appears constantly to have overcompensated for.

Curiously enough, since Sellers is shown portraying great emotions, I was never actually moved myself, except perhaps for the occasion when he is violent towards Britt Ekland and in a particularly galling moment with his children.

The movie reaches its crescendo with Sellers' performance in "Being There" in which it's suggested the reason why Sellers so wanted to play the man without a personality was because he, himself, had no personality.

A few people at my workplace commented they thought the movie was far too stylized. Although I can see their point, and I agree I was never really touched by the movie, I thought Geoffrey Rush's performance more than made up for this. Rush plays not only Sellers, but several other characters in a Sellers-like "Dr Strangelove" kind of way, and achieves all of it with gusto. I also really enjoyed the performance of Miriam Margoyles as Sellers' mother, Peg, with whom he seems to have enjoyed an intense, almost Oedipal relationship.

I thought Geoffrey Rush's performance was fantastic and makes the movie totally worth watching.

I didn't expect this biography to be so interesting but, then, I didn't know a lot about Peter Sellers' private life except for his marriage to Swedish beauty Britt Ekland. One thing that made this more interesting to me was that I grew up in Sellers' era in the '50s through '70s and was familiar with all his films.

Sellers obviously led a strange life or they wouldn't have made a movie about it. I expected what I got: a look at a great film comedian but also a disturbed person underneath the comic image, one that wasn't so funny. Modern films (those since the late '60s) seem to almost sadistically delight in showing a famous person's bad points, more than his or her good. Thus, for many people, this probably wasn't a pleasant film to watch. However, I didn't mind because I found Geoffrey Rush's acting so good, his portrayal of Sellers so credible and fascinating, that I could put up with some of the not-so-much fun to watch scenes. I don't think the latter was overemphasized, anyway.

Watching this film, I thought what a tragic figure was Sellers' mother "Peg," played memorably by Miriam Margolyes. This actress gets almost no billing because she's isn't well- known and that's a pity because she is very good in here. In fact, she's the second "star" of this film. After that comes Charlize Theron as the aforementioned Ekland, Emily Watson as Sellers' first wife "Anne;" John Lithgow as "Blake Edwards," Stanley Tucci as "Stanley Kubrick," and other fine actors.

All the actors were excellent but this is still Rush's film. He dominates almost every scene, reminding me of his first big hit, "Shine."

Overall, this is an interesting biography. Kudos to director Stephen Hopkins for a job well done, too.

Well, how do you rate a biographical movie? I am really not a Peter Sellers buf so I couldn't tell how accurate the movie was. Knowing how these kind of movies are made I am sure it is full of little overdramatisations :) The only measure of quality is the performance of the lead actor and I think Geoffrey Rush did a fabulous job. He talked, looked and moved like Peter Sellers.

However, I couldn't watch more than 30 minutes of the film. The movie portrays a horrible little man, egocentric to the point of disbelief, abusing his wives and children and having no real remorse. While the movie is well done and the acting superb, I couldn't stand the idea of another hour and a half of watching the same type of behavior, so I missed on John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci and other great actors in the cast.

It's a Peter Sellers biography well played by the excellent player Geoffrey Rush(Oscar winner by Shine) and Chalize Theron (also Oscar winner by Monster)as Brit Ekland.Picture reflects the tempestuous relationship with his two first wives Anne(Emily Watson) and Brit and with his parents(Miriam Margolyes and Peter Vaughan). Besides with another actress as Sophia Loren(Sonia Aquino)of whom he was enamored and she rejected him by her husband Carlo Ponti(Long). Geoffrey Rush combines splendidly the comic talent of Peter Sellers at his peak and he makes witty spoof of the absurdities of strange people.Rush is a magnificent Sellers and Theron is an awesome Ekland.The picture has some funny scenes and outrages cameos(Heidi Klum as Ursula Andress;Nigel Havers as David Niven among others). The entertainment deals on the identifying the films that he starred and guess the actors are acting, but are brought to the life images of the following movies :1) Its early stages with Spike Milligan(Edward Tudor)who formed a known comic couple and falling in love with Sophia Loren while is filming 2)¨The mouse that roared ¨(directed by Jack Arnold).3)Rush-Sellers appears dressed as toreador for his film ¨Walz of the toreador¨(John Guillermin).5)¨Casino Royale¨with intervention of director Joe McGrath(Williams)who is insistently asking to Sellers.5)His acting in¨Dr Strangelove or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb¨where Rush-Sellers makes a great performance in three hilarious roles directed by Stanley Kubrick(Stanley Tucci).6)Of course ¨The Pink panther¨(Shot in the Dark,Return, Panther strikes again),his most famous success as the inept,botcher Inspector Closeau with hilarious moments,slapstick and funny scenes ,including the usual struggle with Cato.Besides his love-hate relationship with the director Blake Edwards(John Lithgow) and leaving with no beginning a film titled : ¨The romance of Pink Panther¨.7)¨Being There¨:A biting satiric comedy and a sublimely enjoyable pic, features his last great screen interpretation,Rush repeats perfectly the Sellers scenes.His portrayal of a naive gardener rising to great political heights is wonderful. The last Sellers film was ¨The fiendish plot of Fumanchu¨(Piers Haggard)that was an authentic flop and starred with his last wife Lynne Frederick(she early died) who inherited the most part of his fortune though he was separated of her in the death moment ,he hadn't turned the testament.His sons only inherited a few money.If you're a Geffrey Rush and Peter Sellers fan,you'll like it. Well Catching.

I am both a fan of the talents of Geoffrey Rush and of Peter Sellers, but I am afraid that I found this film extremely difficult to watch.

Firstly, the film depicts Sellers as a man without empathy, compassion, affection or indeed any humanity. Excepting perhaps the first moments of the film when he is looking after his baby daughter, he cares for no-one except himself. This may or may not be the case, but it means that ultimately you just don't care about him. You don't care that he ends up lonely and alone. Once I started to feel this about him, I just found it hard going.

Secondly, it was a bit too smarty pants for me, the way he kept merging into the characters of his family. I wondered what the point of that was, it just annoyed me.

Did Rush do a good job? It's a hard call. In the end I felt he was impersonating someone impersonating others. He couldn't capture the inner Sellers, because there was none. According to the film, at least.

In some ways, mainly this film disturbed me, because I do love Sellers' work and perhaps I don't want to think of him as an awful, empty, shallow shambles of a person.

For anyone interested in Peter Sellers life and work, this film is certainly worth watching, if for nothing more than the incredible re-creations of scenes from Sellers' films. Geoffrey Rush is transformed into a nearly dead-ringer for Sellers, through the magic of make up and prosthetics. But as talented as he may be, no one can recreate the subtleties of the master, especially the use of his eyes…Sellers' eyes were by far the funniest aspect of his physicality: narrowing, widening, always moving, punctuating his actions and illuminating the emotions within, even as part of the most farcical of performances.

Such a rich and varied life would lend itself to a miniseries but of course it would be a copout to suggest that at least a glimmer into the life of a man couldn't be done successfully within two hours. What this movie drove home for me was how terribly short the human lifespan really is, and how little time we have to truly discover ourselves and come to terms with our own frailties. I felt that the basis of Sellers unhappiness, which manifested itself in inexcusable cruelty to his family, friends and co-workers, was a direct result of his childhood, which was never really addressed in this film. It was, in his own words to Michael Parkinson, not a very happy time in his life. Growing up in the theater circuit, being in the company of boozy and abusive 'theatricals', and being raised by a domineering mother and what I gather was a rather passive and emotionally unavailable father set the stage for a man who obviously felt deprived of the things that give us self-esteem and confidence. No one in his adult life could give him the things he should've received from his parents as a child, and he took out that frustration on those closest to him.

Also interesting were the glimpses of his fellow Goons (Spike Milligan and Harry Secombe) at various chapters in his life-in the church at his mother's funeral, in the crowd at the premiere of 'The Pink Panther'. They represented what he considered the happiest time of his life and they were a constant presence, flitting in an out of his life at key moments in the film, like the ghosts of Christmas Past.

Interesting also in how one decision, in this case his delusional infatuation with Sophia Loren, set in motion a series of dovetailing mistakes in his life, which took him further and further away from a relatively healthy existence. He had twenty years more to live and it turned out to be not enough time to turn things around.

I love Peter Sellers movies and have seen just about all of them that are available--even his really crappy ones (and he made quite a few--especially later in his career). I loved his abilities and characterizations...but I also realize that he was a horrid person off the set...absolutely horrid. So although I was very curious to watch this made for HBO film, I also didn't see a whole lot to surprise me or make me glad I saw it. I already knew he was depressed, angry, insecure and a terrible husband...so why did I watch it, then?! And I think this will be the reaction of many people who are acquainted with the real-life Sellers. And that is the shortcoming of the film--there are no surprises or new insights into this enigmatic man. Also, the film was awfully episodic as it seemed to bounce around too much and would be hard to follow unless you are very familiar with his career. What you are left with is a marvelous performance by Geoffery Rush (for which he deserved and won the Golden Globe) and a high quality production all around. You really can't blame the people who made the film--they seemed to try their best. So I'd sum it all up by saying it was exceptionally well made but not really necessary for most viewers to see it nor is it much fun to watch. It seems to be the sad story of a pathetic jerk and perhaps its best value is as an object lesson to us all.

The Roomie and I sat down for a nice evening of HBO Sunday night television. Unexpectedly, the HBO current drama, The Wire, wasn't on in order that HBO could feature its movie, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers.

I must say, I expected a bit more from the movie, hoping it would be a bit more entertaining. HBO's preview certainly made it look as if it would be more upbeat. Geoffrey Rush commands a superb performance of the famous actor, his own characters and the brief cutaway scenes wherein Rush portrays various other characters in the movie notwithstanding. But the movie, which I wouldn't even classify as dark comedy, was ultimately depressing.

Peter Sellers is presented as a childlike and selfish man with no personality of his own who faced anything serious in his life by retreating into characters. The writers show him as a megalomaniac, who only returns to Blake Edwards' Pink Panther films after he has a series of cinematic failures and is basically broke.

Academy award winning actress Charlize Theron is the opposite of Aileen Wournos, portraying Sellers second wife and 60s starlet, Britt Eckland. Her Swedish 'accent' is unconvincing. English character actress Miriam Margolyes does a wonderful job as Peg Sellers, the overbearing mother who created the monster of self and arrogance that Peter Sellers apparently became. The movie also features John Lithgow, playing John Lithgow as Blake Edwards (Geoffrey Rush does a better job at Edwards in a brief cutaway scene), and a decent performance by Stanley Tucci as Stanley Kubrick.

Emily Watson, best known for her Oscar-nominated role in Hilary and Jackie, also has an outstanding performance as Anne Sellers, Peter's first wife and source of emotional support, long after their divorce.

Ultimately, I would not be surprised if Sellers' children or any of his wives had a strong hand in the making of this film, given the sympathetic portrayal of both Anne Sellers and Britt Eckland as well as Anne's children, Michael and Sarah. Although in general, the acting provided award-winning performances, notably by Rush, this movie should be included in a long line of bitter, posthumous bio-epics that began with Mommie Dearest.

If you are a great fan of Geoffrey Rush, and want to watch one of the performances of his life, see The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. If you are, like I am, a huge fan of Peter Sellers' life work, then rent any one of his many motion pictures, but avoid this movie at all cost.

I couldn't imagine a more perfect actor to play this part. Nothing more can be said about that. When you see the film, you'll know.

Someone commented here on IMDb that the movie left them feeling empty, but I didn't experience this in the least. But my feeling was that the acting & everything else was so well done that I felt myself wishing there could be a sequel.

The story was as I would have imagined. Anyone with the genius talent of Sellers had to have a crazy side. I watched this movie with my 15 year old son and it brought out perfectly how letting a kid feel he's the center of the universe is the worst way to raise them. It was plain that Sellers mother was his undoing as well as his making. That's a whole other subject in itself. Sellers arrested mental and emotional growth due to his mother's molly-coddling, disastrously affected everything in his life and the lives of everyone involved with him.

But then there's this side bit. This sad undertone where he has this dream to do something more meaningful, not just get a big laugh, but to do something HE felt was meaningful, not what everyone ELSE wanted from him. A longing. It was as if he couldn't lead his own life. He couldn't be himself because that wasn't what anyone wanted. Everyone demanded this genius crazy side which began to eat at him. Eventually his dream came true and he could do the film "Being There" which could very well be a parallel story of the way he saw himself. A simple person with a talent for making others feel good, but totally unrelated to what each is actually intending.

This, to me, is a film I will want to see more than once. Seven stars.

Geoffrey Rush has got all the plaudits for his performance as Peter Sellers in Steven Hopkins' portrayal, and all of the praise he has gotten is widely deserved. Rush puts in a truly remarkable performance as Sellers, particularly in his portrayal as the character Dr Strangelove.

Hopkins has done a masterful piece of directing, with the autobiographical asides being particularly well done, if a little unusual with Rush becoming each of the main characters (not that Sellers didn't do similar of course in Dr Strangelove!).

There is no doubt that Sellers was a flawed individual - I mean, what kind of person would really treat Britt Ekland like that? - but he was also a comic genius, and this comes across as an honest and accurate portrayal of the man.

It's criminal that this film isn't eligible for the academy awards as it's not getting a cinema release in the USA, as Rush and Hopkins would both be strong contenders.

Rush is backed up by a number of strong backup performances by Charlize Theron, John Lithgow (superb as Blake Edwards, and would also deserve an Oscar nomination), Stephen Fry and Sonia Aquino as Sophia Loren (although her double, newcomer Kate Burrell was actually better in my opinion!). And does Emily Watson ever get sick of being typecast as the long suffering woman in such films? She doesn't seem to, and I find that curious!

Would definitely recommend seeing, as I found it quirkily good.

this film has a couple of remarkable strengths, especially the actors, Geoffrey Rush, Emily Watson and some others. Together with good cinematography they manage to produce enchanting moments and in line with the film's overall intentions, it offers its own comments: to this film, like to Peter Sellers, there is a magnetic side. The theme in itself is also worthwhile: the tyranny of possibility, how being a brilliant actor means giving up being a distinct person because you can be so much. Some of the best moments are watching Rush acting Sellers acting in films.

Yet ultimately the film does not hold together. Some of the connections are overwrought, especially when Rush steps into Sellers playing a surprise appearance as his own mother, clearly pronouncing the theme of the genius being condemned to aloofness. Here the movie becomes as clichéd as a novel by Balzac. After such scenes you lose faith, and it is difficult to turn back onto the film.

A couple of decisions really damaged the film. The songs seem to have been chosen by an intern. They are meant to complement the film, but effectively sabotage crucial scenes, because they are entirely obvious, over-rehearsing an already existing theme.

Charlize Theron is not convincing as Brit Eklund, although she does her best.

Lastly, when Rush acts out the unpleasant side of Sellers, he overdoes it. Yes, Sellers may have been that way but a good representation should have been a little more withdrawn and subtle. This would have made the film much stronger.

On balance, it is a good film and worth watching but not what it could have been.

One of the finest actors life brought to life by a superb actor.

Peter Sellers, one of the iconic actors and who in his time was one of the finest actors, makes us see his other side of life. Of course, acting is a intricate part of him. Rather, we are made to see Peter Sellers up close and personal by Geoffrey Rush, a fine actor in his own right and after seeing his portrayal of sellers, I am now ranking Rush higher than many of his contemporaries.

Peter Sellers is portrayed to be eccentric, introvert and fascinated by women he likes. He has by-far stretched to reach out to those he liked rather than loved. And moreover, he is made to be superstitious with hallucinations of a foreteller, coming and telling him what he must be doing next. His relationship with Blake Edwards, with whom he made a series of Pink Panther movies seems to began as letters B E are read out to be initials of his next parter by the foreteller. He believes that and makes another B E (Britt Ekland) as his partner.

Such interesting things have made this biographical movie it quite an interesting ride and yes Geoffrey Rush made me sit and observe every nuance of his and at times clap for him too. I must say, Rush played Peter Sellers better than anybody could have done.

Having said about the actor, now I was wondering how on earth did Stephen Hopkins who is an action movie director, courtesy PREDATOR 2, lap this up and did such a fine job. Ah, I must rather credit Roger Lewis who wrote the book, and also Chris Markus and Stephen McFeely for having written a teleplay with same name.

The other departments did their job pretty well, but I would have loved more had Mr.Sellers passion to what his real thing is was shown, this movie is diabolical in a way coz it shows Sellers as one such Diabolique who just throws away what he loves, from his love to his wife to his passion for movies.

I saw this movie twice just for the acting of Rush and indeed it's such an interesting fine film that I would love to see it again with friends some day. I am going with 4/5 for an interesting biography of one of the finest actors ever to be seen.

The good news is that, even though THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS relies on the tired and true method of most filmed biographies, it nonetheless makes several bold attempts to break free of the this-happened-that-happened format, striving to be inventive and daring in the way the story unfolds. The bad news about the film is that it falls into the same predictable trap that befalls most motion pictures that examine the lives of well admired people: it ends up showing the subject, in this case a comic genius, to be a real jerk off the screen. Thus, you have the paradox of making a film that will mostly be of interest to fans of Sellers and who, therefore, probably won't really want to see his memory besmirched.

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PETER SELLERS, though stuck with a mundane title, is certainly a well made film especially by TV standards. The film travels Sellers' path, more or less, chronologically marking each professional and private milestone with a scene or two of appropriate melodrama. However, the film cleverly steps into and out of reality at odd intervals to draw parallels between Sellers' largely successful career as a film star, while at the same time using little dramatic tricks to comment on various less successful aspects of his sometimes turbulent private life.

Showing a surprising versatility, Geoffrey Rush embodies Sellers, going beyond mere impersonation. He admirably meets the challenge of not only playing Peter Sellers both at various ages and as many of his most famous characters (Clouseau, Strangelove, Chance the gardener, etc.) but also steps into the characters played by the other actors. In a move that could have been no more than an embarrassing gimmick, the film allows Rush to briefly take over the other actors' roles and provide a secondary commentary on what is unfolding in the basic drama. The funhouse effect of watching, for instance, an actor (Rush) playing an actor (Sellers) playing an actor (John Lithgow) playing a character based on a real person (director Blake Edwards) is amazing, both in the way it propels the narrative and in how neatly Rush pulls the stunt off. Rush's performance, Stephen Hopkin's direction and the cleverly conceived script make the hall of mirrors trickery work as both a commentary on Sellers' own ability to play multiple roles in his films and also suggests that the way the people in Sellers' life saw him may have differed greatly from how Sellers thought he was being seen.

In much the same way that BEING JOHN MALKOVICH gave us a glimpse of a all-Malkovich world, we get an egocentric vision of Sellers' world. Generally, biopics have but one voice, that of the god-like filmmaker. PETER SELLERS like the actor himself, seems compelled to use many voices, most of them belonging to Sellers. Coming after scenes in which Sellers behaves rather badly, these character transformations allow Sellers to explain or excuse his behavior and use his talent to impose his self-absorbed personality on others.

Stylistically, the film is a success, as it also evolves visually, so that the tone and the style of scenes mimic the prevailing cinematic fashion of each subsequent era and each subsequent movie in Sellers' filmography. But it is as history that the film gets shaky. There are, for instance, inconsistencies: Scenes from several Sellers' films like DR. STRANGELOVE and BEING THERE are nicely recreated right down to the set design, yet the recreated scene from CASINO ROYALE bears no resemblance to any moment in the final film. Also, much is made of Sellers being picked to star in STRANGELOVE for Stanley Kubrick, but there is no mention of the fact he had already starred in Kubrick's extremely controversial LOLITA two years before. Nitpicky little things, maybe; but things that make you question the veracity of the film as whole.

Thus, PETER SELLERS faces the same problem that plagues all filmed biographies; how to squeeze thirty years of a man's life into two hours of celluloid. Facts unavoidably get omitted, relationships condensed and complex situations simplified. That is why the printed page and not the silver screen is the proper place for a good biography. Yet, Hollywood perseveres and foolishly aims for quantity over quality in trying to encapsulate a human life into a moving photo album. The result is less a story than a reel of highlights; a collection of moments chosen not so much because they accurately define an individual, but because they are particularly controversial, cruel, frightening or just plain weird. The atypical gets highlighted over the typical. With Peter Sellers, we have seen him at his best, on screen and in character; the film attempts to show him mostly at his worst; as a distant father, an unfaithful husband, a temperamental unprofessional celebrity and perhaps even as a manic-depressive.

Does knowing that Peter Sellers had a nasty temper and was prone to childish, petty temper tantrums really enhance our appreciation of his work? Will being exposed to his private demons make Clouseau funnier or Strangelove creepier or Chance more whimsical? I don't think so.

Shakespeare once wrote that "the evil men do live after them, the good is often interred with their bones." Had he lived today, he might have added "unless you happen to be a celebrity." Peter Sellers left a legacy of vivid, oddball characters and a handful of remarkably unforgettable movies. All else is interesting, but unimportant backstory. Thus, ultimately, Sellers will get the last laugh, something this film seems to want to deny him.

Geoffrey Rush is phenomenal as every character played by Peter Sellers in his varied career. The sad story of a man who effectively lost his personality in the characters he assumed is brought to life and it was convincing. I remember feeling sad when Sellers died, but at the same time I saw in his final TV interview that he wasn't able to express who he was. This was evoked very well by this film. It is tragic in many ways but realistic. He was a comedy genius and films like Dr Strangelove could not have been made without him. Peter Sellers' early comedies are also well worth revisiting.

I enjoyed the movie and I'm glad i made the effort to see it. All the cast were wonderful and looked like the people they were playing.

Other reviewers have said most of what I have to say about the movie. Peter Sellers was a complex subject that could never be covered adequately in two hours. However, Geoffrey Rush does an outstanding job of what must have been a truly daunting task in representing that weird man.

In a sense, how you view Sellers depends one how much responsibility for his actions you are willing to lay on him. The film takes a fairly neutral stance, glossing very lightly indeed over the many extremely unsavory deeds he perpetrated, treating him instead as an odd and enigmatic character. I'm not really sure he deserved such sympathy, but there you are.

Rush, as I've mentioned, is simply brilliant. In fact, the quality of his acting is what makes this film worth seeing. Particularly interesting are the scenes where he plays Sellers playing other people (his Dad, his Mum, Stanley Kubrick, Blake Edwards, etc). Fascinating, but...what's it mean? One interpretation is that--as he claimed himself many times--he had no personality of his own, and merely adopted other people's, both on screen and off. Ingenious, but the things Sellers in the movie says as other people show a different perspective from his own--something he himself apparently could not comprehend. One is left with the feeling that it was simply a stunt.

Another facet of note is the fact that the movie is clearly anti-Goon: Spike Milligan and Harry Secombe are portrayed as fluttery nincompoops, and the Goon Show as a string of stupid, puerile jokes. (For those of you who've never heard of it, it was a wild and completely revolutionary BBC radio show in the 1950's that changed British comedy from polite, corny music hall jokes to Monte Python-style surrealism, and rocking the establishment. They were the Eminem of their day.) It was one of Sellers' most famous jobs, and many people feel it's his best work. While it's true that at one point he wanted to distance himself from radio work to break into movies, he owed a tremendous debt to Milligan & Co. for shaping his style, enabling him to play Clouseau and many other characters with such zest. In fact, the Goons remained as close friends as he had until the end of his days (one of the many facets of his life the movie leaves out). Given that the Goon Show is one of those things that you either love or you hate, one gets the impression that the people who made the movie simply didn't like the Goons.

The Roger Lewis biography, "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers", is basically a damning indictment of Sellers (and is also pro-Goon). The Ed Sikov book, "Mr. Strangelove", is considerably more sympathetic (as well as being anti-Goon). Given the tone of the movie, perhaps "Mr Strangelove" would have been a better title.