Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Jay Raskin 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.

deason In his autobiography, Chaplin recorded that "Twenty Minutes of Love" had produced "continuous laughs throughout", even though it had been shot in a single afternoon. It has not weathered as well as many of his later comedies, but while re-watching all his shorts in chronological order, this is the earliest one in which I've found a laugh-out-loud moment of true hilarity (described in some detail below). It may not be coincidence that (in August of 1914, when his memory was fresher) Chaplin stated this was the first film he had directed himself.It's an early example of a "park" film, no more difficult to follow than others of the genre, once one has attuned one's attention to performance styles and conventions of the times. Luckily the film is short enough that it can easily be viewed multiple times without hardship, to help train one's eyes and mind to follow a story without sound.DETAILED BUT SMALL-SCALE SPOILER The various conflicts with various couples are pretty standard; the instant of magic for me involves a twice-stolen watch. Charlie has stolen it from the pocket of a man he does not know is a thief. Chased by the thief, and alarmed at the proximity of a policeman, Charlie attempts hurriedly to sell the hot watch to a man asleep on a park bench, who unbeknownst to Charlie, is the watch's original owner.The transaction (like all of Chaplin's silent conversations) is communicated brilliantly and (if you watch, and think) clearly in pantomime. We see Charlie offer the watch and set a price. We see the owner perceive the watch as familiar and check his pockets, discover his watch is missing and realise that this is indeed his own stolen watch being offered back to him.We see the owner try to tell Charlie that this is his watch, and Charlie agrees "yes, it's yours once you pay me". After a more forceful repetition from the man, Charlie understands that this man is claiming to be the true owner of the watch! It is Charlie's reaction of quickly pulling the watch back with suspicion, disbelief and resentment at what he considers so transparent an attempt at fraud, that I find still works so well.It's a complex set-up for the time, and modern audiences who through inexperience with the Keystone-era silent comedy find the fast-paced action confusing enough to lose track of the characters and their histories will miss it entirely. It's a very well-constructed gag, though - the audience alone knows the full truth, while each character has a partial view that seems to contradict the other's. The audience understands perfectly the confusion of the characters. (Alas that the dissection of gags is never as funny as the gags themselves.) There are other laughs in the movie, but for me this was the best by far.

eadut 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.

Matt Barry As with any of Chaplin's films, this must be seen. Its title could've been "20 MINUTES OF LAUGHS," as that's just what this film supplies!