Director Stephen Hopkins and writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely have come up with a marvelous theatrical conceit, (although it would never work on stage with all the drastic costume and make up changes) which has formed the basis of their screen adaption of Roger Lewis' labor of love, 'The Life & Death of Peter Sellers'.

Their idea is that Peter Sellers should play all the characters in the film that is about his life, which given his extraordinary ability to play multiple parts in a single film, is a logical extension of the man's ability and a valid approach. After each scene when Geoffrey Rush (Sellers)appears, the camera cuts, and the illusion that we are watching a film is peeled away to be replaced by the illusion that we are watching Peter Sellers become each of the other characters in his life,such as his parents and his first wife as he impersonates them. For a short while it's deceptively believable, until you realize the characters have been replaced by Sellers (Rush) speaking as he wished the other characters had spoken. The rationale for this is based on the premise that Sellers was completely egocentric, the center of his own universe who was dictatorial and attempted to manipulate everyone in his own life, not least his own wives and children.

It's an ingenious idea, but limited because Sellers didn't play unsympathetic characters on film, apart from the psychopathic, gangland boss in 'Never Let Go' (1959). Thereafter his characters were likable, but flawed individuals, invested with his own sense of humor and usually adorned with his vocal gifts, although 'Being There' is the obvious exception, when, stripped of voices and the characters of others, he played himself. While the effect of having Sellers impersonate other characters does reveal the extent of his flawed nature, it does lend a somewhat stuttering pace to the film, hampered by the technique of Sellers 'complete' the thoughts of the other characters, if he were capable of controlling them.

Nevertheless, there is much to admire in Roger Levy's camerawork, full of dark interiors, the virtuoso performance of Geoffrey Rush, who gives more than a glimpse of Sellers' emptiness and insecurity. Emily Watson as his first wife Anne gives and understated, authoritative performance and Miriam Margoles as Peg exudes the smothering embrace, which Sellers struggled to escape from. Her portrayal sheds some light on why Sellers got away with such appalling behavior for so long; he was dominated and completely above reproach in his critical, formative years.

One consequence of watching the film is that it makes me want to seek out and reassess Sellers' forgotten movies, which sank without trace at the box office. I'm thinking of; 'Blockhouse', 'Hoffman', 'Where Does It Hurt?', 'After The Fox' and even 'A Day At The Beach' although he only played a brief cameo in that. For a more complete picture, Roger Lewis' book is worth reading.

Inevitably the final verdict on Sellers may elude easy categorization. He remains even more of an enigma, but there is also a sense of disappointment that his legacy isn't greater. Outrageously gifted, he lacked discipline, preferring to settle for easy laughs rather than having the patience to develop material fully and often losing interest in projects before their completion, which must also place a question mark over his judgment of film material.

Geoffrey Rush is a brilliant acting genius. And this movie is a personal masterpiece for him. The depth of each scene is fascinating. Rush takes chances, using different film angles, breaking down the 4th wall, adopting new characters. All this busyness could have killed a last talented actor/director. But Rush stitches it all together brilliantly.
I compare this movie to Citizen Kane. Each scene is a discussion in itself, and the scenes together create a something new again.

I was completely engaged during the whole movie, unexpectedly so. I started watching the movie as a biography of Peter Sellers. But 40 minutes into the movie, i realized i was watching something so much more.

This movie would be a great film-club movie, with friends watching and sharing different insights. The discussion would go on and on.

After i was done watching, i watched it again, because i couldn't believe what had just happened. And the 2nd viewing was just as fascinating, as i picked up things i missed the 1st time around.

All the actors in this movie contribute to it's overall success.
I've never seen a poor performance by Geoff Rush. He shined in Pirates of the Caribbean, and in Munich as well. He puts a lot into his craft.

This movie enters my all-time cinematic favorites:
Here's my list:
Citizen Kane
The Thin Red Line
Life & Death of Peter Sellers

This flick was depressing. Theron and Rush are quite good here, but the story just might pull you down. Sellers had it all, it seems to me, and yet failed to be happy about any of it.
How? Why?
Born unhappy and died unhappy.
Some folks are never satisfied, no matter what. Guy was married to a beautiful woman, had nice kids, terrific
career...yet, none of it made any difference.
Maybe he's finally found his peace of mind: six feet under.
Who knows?
Who cares?

You get one shot at this thing called life, and you gotta do what you can to find some happiness, some joy...because, really, it can't all be bad. What irks, what makes it frustrating, is just this: as stated above, the guy had every reason to be happy...but wasn't.

There are people out there in this big world who have a lot less, who may even have less than that...but are able to be happy about something, at least.

Am almost tempted to go back and give this flick less than the three stars I gave it already. That would be short-changing Charlize Theron and Goeffrey Rush, so I can't bring myself to do it.

Peter Sellers next to Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd is the best example of comedic talent in the world. This film however paints him as a sad sex induced loser. A role he is not. If so, he should be portrayed in a more sympathetic way.

"The Life and Death of Peter Sellers," produced by HBO and BBC Films, has its moments, including a surreal scene in which Sellers has a near death vision populated by his assorted film characters, but it somehow misses the mark. There are times when I swore it was the late Sellers himself appearing in his own life story, but too often Geoffrey Rush is obviously Geoffrey Rush pretending to be an actor whose face is more familiar to audiences than his own.

Although it would be impossible to dramatize any life without condensing certain events to save time, those familiar with the subject are tempted to wince at errors. Sellers' career stalled in the early `70s and was revived with 1975's "Return of the Pink Panther," NOT the next year's "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" as the film claims. In an office where a nearly destitute Sellers meets with Blake Edwards (a bewigged John Lithgow), he rejects the script for the `76 Inspector Clouseau vehicle while Edwards holds up a poster for "Where Does It Hurt?," a film that a studio executive (who is portrayed as rather stuffy and square, as execs are always portrayed in these Hollywood biopics) claims was not released. Actually, it was, briefly, in summer `72.

Did the screenwriters get it wrong or were the facts changed for dramatic effect and reasons of economy? Whatever their motive, it had me saying "Wait a minute, that's not true." I said that one time too many during the course of the film," enough for me to question the accuracy of the entire film.

I'd give Geoffrey Rush an A for effort for his performance, but I'd rather stick to the real Sellers.

Brian W. Fairbanks