TheLittleSongbird Am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin, have been for over a decade now. Many films and shorts of his are very good to masterpiece, and like many others consider him a comedy genius and one of film's most important and influential directors. He did do much better than his directing debut 'Twenty Minutes of Love', still made very early on in his career where he was still finding his feet and not fully formed what he became famous for. Can understand why the Keystone period suffered from not being as best remembered or highly remembered than his later efforts, but they are mainly decent and important in their own right. 'Twenty Minutes of Love' is a long way from a career high, but has some nice things about it.'Twenty Minutes of Love' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and some other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. Things feel a little scrappy and confused at times and Chaplin's directing debut does betray inexperience.For someone who was still relatively new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Twenty Minutes of Love' is not bad at all. While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable for so early on and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy or repetitive shtick.Although the humour, charm and emotion was done even better and became more refined later, 'Twenty Minutes of Love' is mildly amusing, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves reasonably quickly, though not without its dull spots, and doesn't feel too long or short. Overall, far from one of Chaplin's best and patchy but not bad. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Twenty Minutes of Love" is an American black-and-white silent short film from 1914, so this one is already over a century old, actually 105 years next year, and this one was made by the still pretty young Charlie Chaplin, who not only plays the main character, but also co-directed this one. The cast includes several names that film fans of this era and fans of Chaplin's other works may recognize to some extent. The action is taking place at a park this time where Chaplin causes quite a great deal of havoc to the other visitors, most of it unintentionally or from the heat of the moment though and not really intentionally. Malice is absent you could say, but chaos sure is present as a consequence of Chaplin's actions. Still all in all, he may not be at his best yet at that point as story and acting all in all are far from memorable. Still if you like Chaplin more than I do, then perhaps you will enjoy the watch nonetheless I guess. But I still cannot give it a positive recommendation as the only moment I found hilarious in a positive way was when he accidentally hits that lady near the end and that just isn't enough for this runtime, which by the way was way under 20 minutes in every version I found. I think it has rather to do with more fps than lost scenes. A thumbs-down for this one here as I did not feel the love and felt that premise and location offered the possibility of a far better outcome. Watch something else instead.

Michael_Elliott Twenty Minutes of Love (1914) *** (out of 4) A man (Charles Chaplin) walks through the park and notices all sorts of couples making out so he decides to spoof them with a tree. This is a faster paced short with Chaplin doing all sorts of goodies but the highlights are the tree scene and the ending where everyone starts falling in a lake.The Landlady's Pet (1914) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Charles Chaplin plays the favorite of the landlady, which doesn't sit well with the other occupants. This short really doesn't feature anything special and is quite bland with the exception of one scene where Chaplin learns to play tennis.Cruel, Cruel Love (1914) *** (out of 4) A man (Charles Chaplin) is dumped by his fiancé so he decides to kill himself. After drinking the poison he receives a letter from the fiancé saying she wants him back. It's interesting to see Chaplin playing a role outside The Tramp and this short allows him to go all out. The best scenes include one where he destroys a room and another one where he fantasizes about hell before taking the poison.

mkilmer If you want your vision of Chaplin limited to a lovable tramp and you get your belly laughs from pathos, watch something else. If, however, you love slapstick comedy as performed by one of the best, do watch this one.The image is of the tramp who really cannot get the girl. He spots another couple kissing on a park bench, and he has a blast ruining their fun.This is one of Chaplin's "park comedies," filmed in Mack Sennett's park, with pickpockets and cops and couples. These shorts work, as the format allows Chaplin to shine as he weaves through predicaments.I checked the box, as this could be considered a spoiler, though it's not if you've seen these films. Everyone ends up in the pond except Chaplin. He gets the girl, who in this case was played by Minta Durfee, a.k.a. Mrs. Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle.