when the puffy chair beckons and beware of its soft and colorful upholstery. the movie starts out quite well. josh (mark duplass) and emily (kathryn aselton) are a boyfriend girlfriend couple having a bit of a tough time with their relationship. an argument occurs one night and in order to make up and josh asks emily to come along on a roadtrip to his father house where josh plans to deliver a purplish lazyboy recliner for his dad birthday. emily accepts and along the way they pick up josh flighty brother rhett (rhett wilkins) and an amish looking fellow more in touch with other peoples lives than his own. the roadtrip quickly devolves into more squabbling between josh and emily and as well as a bitter feeling for the puffy chair (it is initially very grubby and falling apart until josh convinces the original owner to refurbish it). rhett quickly ascertains that the cause of all of emily and josh problems is the lazyboy and sets it to the torch one night . and that the last we hear of the chair and even though there are many minutes left in the film. the big issue is that the title of the film is the puffy chair and when it isn not the chair at all that takes center stage. it is josh and emily doomed relationship and how the roadtrip seals their feelings for one another. once the chair is destroyed and there never another mention of it and even though they arrive at josh parents place on his father birthday without a gift. josh never mentions the chair and nor does his father. there no connection between it and the lives of these people. so why call the movie the puffy chair and why isn not there a tie in with it at the end. bad script. the other annoying thing is that mark duplass brother and jay duplass and is not only the director but also the cameraman (and not a very good). nearly every scene has a rapid zoom in on the characters that goes grainy and out of focus before the camera autofocus catches up and rights itself. initially this took on a quaint and artistic feel and but rapidly became unbearable. the acting in the film is accessible and entertaining. all of the actors or actresses did fine jobs. but the poor production quality and stilted ending and and lack of coherency to the title caused this flick too many problems. 
when the puffy chair beckons and beware of its soft and colorful upholstery. the movie starts out quite well. josh (mark duplass) and emily (kathryn aselton) are a boyfriend girlfriend couple having a bit of a tough time with their relationship. an argument occurs one night and in order to make up and josh asks emily to come along on a roadtrip to his father house where josh plans to deliver a purplish lazyboy recliner for his dad birthday. emily accepts and along the way they pick up josh flighty brother rhett (rhett wilkins) and an amish looking fellow more in touch with other peoples lives than his own. the roadtrip quickly devolves into more squabbling between josh and emily and as well as a bitter feeling for the puffy chair (it is initially very grubby and falling apart until josh convinces the original owner to refurbish it). rhett quickly ascertains that the cause of all of emily and josh problems is the lazyboy and sets it to the torch one night . and that the last we hear of the chair and even though there are many minutes left in the film. the big issue is that the title of the film is the puffy chair and when it isn not the chair at all that takes center stage. it is josh and emily doomed relationship and how the roadtrip seals their feelings for one another. once the chair is destroyed and there never another mention of it and even though they arrive at josh parents place on his father birthday without a gift. josh never mentions the chair and nor does his father. there no connection between it and the lives of these people. so why call the movie the puffy chair and why isn not there a tie in with it at the end. bad script. the other annoying thing is that mark duplass brother and jay duplass and is not only the director but also the cameraman (and not a very good). nearly every scene has a rapid zoom in on the characters that goes grainy and out of focus before the camera autofocus catches up and rights itself. initially this took on a quaint and artistic feel and but rapidly became unbearable. the acting in the film is accessible and entertaining. all of the actors or actresses did fine jobs. but the poor production quality and stilted ending and and lack of coherency to the title caused this flick too many problems. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
