A comedy genius, a hot new director and a 17th Century pirate film. What could possibly go wrong?A comedy genius, a hot new director and a 17th Century pirate film. What could possibly go wrong?A comedy genius, a hot new director and a 17th Century pirate film. What could possibly go wrong?
- Awards
- 4 wins total
Peter Sellers
- Self
- (archive footage)
Spike Milligan
- Self
- (archive footage)
Peter O'Toole
- Self
- (archive footage)
Louis M. Heyward
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (as Deke Heyeard)
Liza Minnelli
- Self
- (archive footage)
Featured reviews
I was left very touched. Whether you liked the movie they're taking about or not, this documentary is definitely more than just "behind-the-scenes". After watching it, you shall know exactly why it was made.
...for a start, 1989's THE FAVORITE, aka INTIMATE POWER. Train-wreck productions are memorable for those involved, in the worst way!
I'm not really sure why Peter Medak made this movie.
He says he was blamed for the failure of the Sellars film, but Sellars was a monster to work with.
Meanwhile, Medak reads his and other's correspondance from back in the day, and frankly he comes off as a weakling who didnt know how to take control of his own set.
Weird.
He keeps saying his career could have been so much better if he hadnt made the pirate movie, but you actually get the feeling that he's be in the same place.
He says he was blamed for the failure of the Sellars film, but Sellars was a monster to work with.
Meanwhile, Medak reads his and other's correspondance from back in the day, and frankly he comes off as a weakling who didnt know how to take control of his own set.
Weird.
He keeps saying his career could have been so much better if he hadnt made the pirate movie, but you actually get the feeling that he's be in the same place.
Serviceable enough documentary- I always have a soft spot for ones that look at troubled film productions, so such a documentary would have to be pretty bad for me to come away truly disliking it.
I think this is seriously flawed in some ways, but I got some enjoyment out of it because of my fondness for this documentary sub-genre (for lack of a better description). It's also technically pretty well made, and feels well-paced and appropriately brisk at just 93 minutes.
It's not quite funny enough to be completely entertaining as a tragicomedy, and I wasn't that big a fan of the main subject at points. He did come across as somewhat petty, but he had also had a tough life and rough creative struggles, so my emotions towards him ended up being conflicted. The film however is incredibly sympathetic towards him, and I'm not sure he 100% earned that portrayal.
Sellers comes across pretty mean, but they do ultimately celebrate his legacy and comedic talent, even whilst lamenting the struggles of working with him and knowing him personally. The look at Sellers (who isn't really the main subject of the documentary- thanks somewhat misleading title) is therefore more balanced and ultimately more interesting.
Also might be a minor flaw, but they REALLY should have got the interviewees to do a better job at specifying which Peter they were reminiscing about, as Peter Medak and Peter Sellers are the two most discussed people in the documentary, and their full names are hardly used during interviews...
I think this is seriously flawed in some ways, but I got some enjoyment out of it because of my fondness for this documentary sub-genre (for lack of a better description). It's also technically pretty well made, and feels well-paced and appropriately brisk at just 93 minutes.
It's not quite funny enough to be completely entertaining as a tragicomedy, and I wasn't that big a fan of the main subject at points. He did come across as somewhat petty, but he had also had a tough life and rough creative struggles, so my emotions towards him ended up being conflicted. The film however is incredibly sympathetic towards him, and I'm not sure he 100% earned that portrayal.
Sellers comes across pretty mean, but they do ultimately celebrate his legacy and comedic talent, even whilst lamenting the struggles of working with him and knowing him personally. The look at Sellers (who isn't really the main subject of the documentary- thanks somewhat misleading title) is therefore more balanced and ultimately more interesting.
Also might be a minor flaw, but they REALLY should have got the interviewees to do a better job at specifying which Peter they were reminiscing about, as Peter Medak and Peter Sellers are the two most discussed people in the documentary, and their full names are hardly used during interviews...
Spike Milligan, not Peter Sellers, is at fault for the pirate movie being so bad since it was Spike who talked his former Goon, Sellers, into doing a movie that he hardly even had developed on the page.
In one reflection, Medak says that both he AND Sellers cried on the phone together after having read what there was to read of the script. Then, when Sellers becomes a pain to the director on set, Spike shows up to write the last half of the script, and acts like the hero for bringing Sellers back to the set, but in reality, it was a set that should have never been built because the script wasn't even finished from the very beginning. A screenplay is the most important "set" of a movie. It's everything.
Seeing parts of the movie, that is, the ACTUAL movie, it doesn't seem all Sellers fault despite Sellers being horrible in it. The direction looks like test shots for rehearsals or casting auditions, so this supposedly brilliant young director wasn't really directing but rather just pointing his camera and filming.
The fault isn't just on Peter Sellers here. And when Medak is sitting next to Spike Milligan's statue, praising him after defecating on Sellers for two hours, it makes very little sense.
In one reflection, Medak says that both he AND Sellers cried on the phone together after having read what there was to read of the script. Then, when Sellers becomes a pain to the director on set, Spike shows up to write the last half of the script, and acts like the hero for bringing Sellers back to the set, but in reality, it was a set that should have never been built because the script wasn't even finished from the very beginning. A screenplay is the most important "set" of a movie. It's everything.
Seeing parts of the movie, that is, the ACTUAL movie, it doesn't seem all Sellers fault despite Sellers being horrible in it. The direction looks like test shots for rehearsals or casting auditions, so this supposedly brilliant young director wasn't really directing but rather just pointing his camera and filming.
The fault isn't just on Peter Sellers here. And when Medak is sitting next to Spike Milligan's statue, praising him after defecating on Sellers for two hours, it makes very little sense.
Did you know
- TriviaThe scenes on location in Cyprus were actually filmed in 2016. Peter Medak then spent two years researching and filming the rest of this documentary,, including managing to interview producer John Heyman (who died in 2017) .
- ConnectionsFeatures Après moi le déluge (1959)
- How long is The Ghost of Peter Sellers?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Peter Sellers'ın Hayaleti
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 33 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content