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

Lee Eisenberg 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.

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.

macestelle hello. 20 minutes of love is very important as it was chaplins first time directing. for that reason alone is enough to make it historic. true, it is not classic chaplin. true, it is not a great comedy. not even for that era. but if you think that chaplin could, as he said something to the effect of give me a park, a pretty girl, and a cop and i can make a movie. well that is what he did. i feel it is so interesting to be able to watch is film acting and directing in it's infancy, and see how he progressed through the years. not many artists work can be seen in such an early stage as chaplins. i think i'll go watch it now. mac estelle