A brilliant film that helped define a genre

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

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.

A movie that comes across as one "written" as though it was discovered only in mid-production that dialogue is important to a film. Interestingly, if one turns off the sound and just watches "Felafel" it is mildly engaging. The cinematography is fine and the film has a cool "look" but the dialogue is just so bloody awful it makes one laugh for all the wrong reasons. As there is really no plot beyond quirky loser moves around meeting even quirkier losers the movie is really just as easy to follow without any sound.The only conceivable reason to endure the dialogue is some fairly decent music in the soundtrack but it would be better just to get hold of the songs because while strong they really don't seem to have any particular relationship to the movie either.

This film really shows how good Australian cinema can be. He Died With A Felafel In His Hand shows something completely different to all the pointless Australian films that rely on tasteless and crass jokes. When you compare 'Felafel with American cinema it is clearly better than the Hollywood dreck that is distributed in Australia, very rarely is a movie of this quality released in Australia.Many people have criticized it's lack of story and plot but these elements are not necessary because the film relies on insights and ideas derived from the book.The cinematography is beautiful and there isn't a dull shot or sequence in the entire film, though it still manages to remain under stated.To put it simply this is one of the best Australian films I have seen.

I regret watching this movie. The only positive thing about this movie is the soundtrack and how the characters show their weirdness without hiding it. For the rest , there is no plot, no emotions, no nothing , no sense whatsoever. If you would like to make movies in your life but you're not sure , watch "he died with a felafel in his hand" , you can't do worse than that. Wait , maybe Van Helsing was worse , but that' s another story. After watching it me and other for friends were speechless. Our faces were saying: what was that all about?