Watch He Died with a Felafel in His Hand For Free

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

I'll tell you why so serious

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

I am told that the three cities in this movie fit stereotypes that native Australians appreciate, so you might like that. Also, there are two good laughs in this. In addition, there is a zany tone that might stick to young viewers. But otherwise this is a disaster. Most everyone seems to agree and cite the trivially episodic design, plus the fact that the moderately popular book on which it was based was not much followed. But I think the problem is more interesting. After all, some episodic comedies do work, and in particular those that define a peculiar, amusing world. This is common in TeeVee.I think the difference here, the failure, is that the characters were not crisp. They never needed to be human, dimensional or sympathetic because we are playing with cartoons after all. But they need to be defined. They need to have enough causal coherence — what actors like to call motivation — for us to get what they are, what they stand for. I would suspect that I just missed the nuance because I am not Australian, but no. Australians have the same problem, even though they have the advantage of recognizable dress styles and phrases.It is just bad writing. I suppose a case could be made for deep irony here, because the main character is a writer and the presumption is that we are reading what he has written. He is portrayed as an abysmally bad writer, and bad in just the way the movie is bad. But there is no sign that the film is that clever.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

While I do try to support the Australian film industry (being Australian myself) occasionally an stinker comes along and, I'm afraid, 'He Died With A Felafel In His Hand' is one of them. Much has been made of this movie as it is the adaptation of a book by John Birmingham. A book that traces the author's life through various share houses around Australia and humorously captures the ups and downs of house sharing. Dealing with an array of strange guys who collect their pubic hair, live in tents in the lounge room and complain about our materialistic and corrupt society. Putting these characters to life would have been a difficult task for the director Richard Lowenstein and this is clearly evident as the film isn't as successful as the book. While Noah Taylor is good as Danny, the tortured writer, the other characters in the film are two dimensional and not worth worrying about or caring for. The characters are merely caricatures of 'weird and wacky' people and the dialogue inexcusably overbearing, the delivery hopelessly bland. Too often characters come in, talk a lot in a very convoluted and quirky manner and then leave only for this routine to be repeated again and again (with different combinations of characters) throughout this meandering wreck. The set design is well done though but only reinforces the fact that this film is all about surface. Much has been made of the soundtrack which is good. Any film that starts with the Stranglers' 'Golden Brown' deserves a shot. But what happens from there is merely pot luck... Read the book!

Sitting 'round Pemberton doing nothing, flicking through the channels, and stopped purely because of one of my (many) favourite tunes was on...Golden Brown by the Stranglers...of course that's the opening sequence to this movie.....Didn't know a thing about it really but just watched it in amazement.I related to the main character quite a bit purely because I travel so much and don't really have any proper roots, and feel that real frustration when people you're living with get so wrapped up in their own little problems when your own seem, at the time, insurmountable.I refer to a particular scene when Danny just blows up at the whining wannabe soap star....I think sometimes I should do the same!! The film is a comedy, but be warned it also goes very dark at times.....one of the characters tries to commit suicide is one grim example.There's a bit of philosophy going on in there but you'd have to watch it a few times and probably read up a little to understand it....I didn't! Because Movie Central was repeating this over and over again I ended up watching it a second time and got to understand it a little more...oh and if Emily Hamilton is single and ever in London/Whistler BC then I'd wine and dine her, that girl is hot....and a bloody good actress as well!

Take a book that everyone loves, rip the guts out of it and stick in a load of pretentious dross that is suffocating the Australian film industry, leaving in only the most superficial aspects of the book itself.It could have been so much more, the film looks great and the cast, as with most Australian films, is fantastic. It's typical that the script lets down the whole operation with each department that made up the screenwriter's Arts degree getting a nod so big it almost knocks over the set. Any subtle elements of the book are discarded, making it easy to tell which scenes are from the book (crazy, zany, whacky) and which scenes are added (grave, weighty, dripping with irony). It's condescending, self-indulgent, lazy and a complete wa*k.John Birmingham is one of the few Australian writers who can bridge the gap between rollicking larrikin and insightful observer. It's obviously alot harder than it seems.