The Puffy Chair

By all accounts, most reviewers liked this film. I did not find the male characters likable. I did not find the story likable. I did not find the production likable. I did find this film a total waste of time.

I liked this film but I wanted more puffy chair. More pound for your puff, if you will. The chair is in effect a character in this film. It's puffy and cool, and I wanted way more of it. Most, if not all, of this film is improvisational dialogue. I would bet on it. Some of it works, some doesn't, often times it calls attention to itself, that's not cool, but the chair is a silent character and he speaks for himself. Yes, I think the chair is a "he." The chair is the glue that holds the film together. The chair is the raison d'etre for the road trip. I craved more scenes with the chair. The scenes wouldn't have to be much, just some occasional short scenes with the chair to chart his progress. It would help. Thank you.

I saw "The Puffy Chair" at South by Southwest, and it is an excellent film. It is genuine, thoughtful, and alternately hilarious and melancholy. It deserves to be the new "Garden State."

The movie's premise is simple: Josh and his girlfriend Emily go on a road-trip to pick up an old puffy recliner that Josh won on ebay and bring it to his dad for his birthday. Along the way, they stop to visit brother, a well-meaning but slightly insane lover of all things - especially nature and women - who ends up tagging along. One of the funniest scenes in the movie occurs when the three attempt to stay at a motel in Virginia but only pay for one person to save ten bucks; the ridiculous scheming (which of course backfires) to save a few bucks is on par with any of George Costanza's finest moments. The exchanges between brothers remind me of my banter with my own siblings, and the relationship that Josh and Emily have feels both unique and universal. The direction and and hand-held camera work give the film a documentary feel that really works well, and the music blends well with what is going on. The director and screenwriter used their low budget to great advantage, keeping things totally authentic; eliminating the documentary-style camera and getting rid of the improvisation would have ruined the mood of the movie.

Overall, the film moves seamlessly from comedy to melancholy and from jubilant romantic beginnings to bittersweet possible endings. If you get a chance to see this flick, give it a try: it's short and sweet, but it will stay with you for a while.

It actually refreshing the amount of people who have totally missed the point of this film...perhaps they have found something most of us yearn for...that amazingly simple feeling of total and mutual infatuation.

For those of us more vulnerable, the main theme of this story will be an all too familiar one. Doubts of commitment, and about committing. That which should be simple, is suddenly a struggle for affirmation. As a guy, I totally related to poor Josh (and his cowardice). I see myself in the reasons he resorts to baby talk and humor (it avoids sincerity), the frustration he represses, and that feeling like you are the only sane person left. As for the women out there...watch this movie and then ponder this: If he is crazy about you and if hes worth being crazy about, then he will make you know it. End of story.

If you don't know it, hes either not crazy about you and doesn't have the balls to admit it, or you want someone who can show it more...move on.

Id like to believe true love is simple, and amazing, like the telling of the story of The Puffy Chair.

I've read quite a few reviews of this film (as well as other "mumblecore" flicks) that are far too generous with the Cassavetes comparisons. Cassavetes dealt with deeply profound subject matter. His characters were struggling with issues of morality, death and sometimes sanity. This was a nice, cute movie, nothing more. The stakes are small-scale, the problems and concerns of he characters are personal to the point of being solipsistic and there's really nothing driving the action other than a pretty hackneyed sense of "loss of childhood." If anything, valid comparisons could be made for the films of John Hughes. His "brat pack" body of work seems to be a point of reference for many of these filmmakers, at least on an emotional level.