Twenty Minutes of Love (1914)

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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

Charlie Chaplin's directorial debut casts him as a man who interrupts people's makeout sessions in a park. There were no feature films by this point, so it makes sense that the movie has a simple plot. It was still going to be a few years before Chaplin started incorporating political issues into his movies. Chaplin's early movies were all about physical comedy, and he makes good use of that here. Co-star Edgar Kennedy (the lover) later played the lemonade vendor in "Duck Soup", while Chester Conklin (the pickpocket) played a mechanic in "Modern Times".It must've been weird for Charlie Chaplin, how he went from being a boy growing up in an orphanage to being an international superstar.

Because of their improvisational style there are often confusions in Keystone films, but this one has far more than average, both on screen and off.First there is confusion over who is the director. Maddern gets listed on the camera reports, but Maddern was only with Keystone for a month. At least 3 of his 4 other movies were documentaries, and the fourth is unknown. Chaplin, in a letter, a few months later to his brother Sidney, has the words "my own" next to this one in a list of his films. This might mean that he came up with the idea for the film rather than that he directed it. If he really directed it, One would expect him to list it as his first film in his autobiography, but he lists "Caught in the Rain" filmed a few weeks later. Maddern may have just set up the camera and let the actors direct themselves. This may have caused Chaplin to later take credit for it. Since nothing else remains of Maddern's oeuvre, it is impossible to know for sure who deserves credit or blame for this.In the very first shot, Chaplin walks towards the camera, but turns around to shout something at somebody he has just left behind. Who is he talking to? What is he talking about? The film leaves it a dead issue, but one has to suspect that elements of plot, and perhaps important ones were cut out before this first shot.Chaplin sees Edgar Kennedy and Minta Durfee making out on a park bench. Does Chaplin know Durfee? He turns and hugs the tree next to him. Is it because he has known Durfee and lost her or is he just love sick in general? It is impossible to know. If he did know Durfee before, his next action would make more sense. He goes to the park bench and observes Durfee and Kennedy kissing from inches away. He starts to hold Durfee's hand. If Chaplin doesn't know her, this is quite perverse. If he does know her, shouldn't she have more of a reaction. One should probably blame this on bad direction, whoever the director was.A few moments later, Chaplin follows Eva Nelson behind some bushes. He finds a couple sitting near the river. Again Chaplin goes up and looks at them as if he knows them, but the man only responds by knocking Chaplin down. This is another moment where the actor and audience don't seem to know what is going on. It suggests to me that something was cut out.At this point, we get a new beginning with Eva Nelson asking her boyfriend Chester Conklin (without his trademark Walrus mustache) to get her a present. He goes off and pickpockets a watch. Before he can give it to her, Chaplin, doing a Ford Sterling impression from the movie "Between Showers" steals the watch.Some good slapstick between Conklin, Durfee and Chaplin make up a bit for the plot inconsistencies. At least this middle section of the film has a clear plot and actions. Still, one would like to know why Chaplin steals the watch a second time after giving it to Durfee to show his love. Does this prove that he really is a pickpocket after all and the love show for Durfee was just an act? Again we get confused or unclear motivations that the audience can only guess at.The ending is the usual keystone chaos breaks loose type, with Chaplin kicking cops into people and lots of bodies flying into the river.While not without some moments of fun, Chaplin's eleventh film does not resonate and I would put it near the bottom of his Keystone work. The films he did just before and after this one, "Mabel Takes the Wheel" and "Caught in a Cabaret," in contrast go to the top. These Mabel Normand directed films are terrific.

Although Twenty Minutes of Love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy, it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. It does have a couple of moments that are funny, but I have seen better by Charlie Chaplin.