Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Micransix Crappy film

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

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 better than 'Recreation', 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. 'Recreation' is a long way from a career high (nor is it a misfire), but has good efforts and one of the average/middling efforts in the 1914 Keystone batch.'Recreation' 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. Occasionally, things feel a little scrappy and confused, the content is not particularly inspired and some of it is on the repetitive side.For someone who was still relatively new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Recreation' is not bad at all and there are flashes of his distinctive style, meaning that he was showing signs of evolving. While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable as his moustache-less Tramp character and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy. Although the humour, charm and emotion was done even better and became more refined later, 'Recreation' is amusing and hard to dislike. It moves quickly and doesn't feel too long or short. Overall, average but far from a bad effort. 5/10 Bethany Cox

CitizenCaine Chaplin tangles with a sailor for the affections of a girl, which is certainly not an original plot at this point for Chaplin. The actors are also of notably less quality than in other early Chaplin films. Before it's all said and done, there's brick-throwing, the face-slapping and ducking routine, and keystone cops getting kicked into a lake. I would be curious to find out how the fascination with brick-throwing initiated in silent films. Chaplin does have a few Chaplin-like moments: At the beginning when he tries putting his legs up over the bridge handrail, when the cop catches him about to throw a brick and he changes his demeanor instantaneously, and when using his cane to prod the behind of the girl he vied for next to the lake. This is typically what would be referred to today as one of Chaplin's "park comedies." *1/2 of 4 stars.

MartinHafer I've seen quite a few Chaplin shorts from early in his career and I've noticed that his early stuff (done for Keystone Studios) is pretty dreadful stuff. Unlike his wonderful full-length films from the 20s and 30s, the films from 1914-1915 are incredibly poorly made--having no script but only vague instructions from the director. In most cases, the films had almost no plot and degenerated to people punching and kicking each other.In this film, Charlie walks around the park kicking, hitting and throwing bricks. That's all! He had done practically the same thing in some previous flicks and it's obvious the director just told him to improvise. Judging by the results, he was having a bad day.FYI--the picture was on DVD from Delta Entertainment. Of all the shorts on the DVD, this was by far the worst quality--having been degraded almost to the point where it was unwatchable.PS--I got an email from miked32 indicating that Chaplin HIMSELF was the director. Then I guess he is to blame along with the fact that few of these earely Sennett films had any working script.

wmorrow59 On the set of Modern Times in the mid-1930s Charlie Chaplin spoke wistfully to journalist Gilbert Seldes about how, in his early days making movies, he'd simply go to the nearest park with a cop and a pretty girl and they'd make up the story as they went along. Recreation looks very much like the kind of film he was waxing nostalgic about: it's a brief, rudimentary sketch involving a rivalry between Charlie and a sailor over the sailor's girl. The fighting begins almost immediately, many bricks are thrown, cops get involved, and eventually everybody winds up in the lake. It certainly looks improvised, and I'm sure the actors had fun, but the result is little more than a few minutes of slapstick mayhem. Scripts as such were seldom used at Keystone, but if there'd been one for this movie it would have read: "Throw Brick. React. Hide Behind Tree. Grimace. Throw Brick," etc. etc. Spontaneity is the main thing Recreation has going for it; that, and brevity. I can understand why the middle-aged Chaplin felt sentimental about the simplicity of filmmaking in his early days, but the fact is, Modern Times is a great film while this one isn't. To put it another way, nostalgia for youthful spontaneity is all well and good, but there's a lot to be said for craftsmanship. The Chaplin who made Modern Times was an experienced craftsman, but the young fellow who cranked out Recreation in a park one day was still an apprentice learning his trade, and while it must have amused audiences in 1914, there isn't much here for viewers today to enjoy. Another drawback: none of the familiar Keystone players appear in support, so there's no Mabel, no Roscoe, no Chester Conklin or Edgar Kennedy to enliven the proceedings. The other actors in this movie aren't very interesting, and the guy playing the sailor in particular is a real ham.There are a couple of nice little moments, however. At the beginning Charlie is on a bridge, apparently contemplating suicide. He hoists one leg up on the railing and then the other, and swiftly falls on his butt. It's a dexterous maneuver we associate with Buster Keaton, who performed it all his life. The second moment arrives later on, when Charlie picks up a brick (yet again) to hurl at his rival the sailor. He's interrupted when a cop comes along, catching him in the act as he's about to wind up and pitch. Smoothly, instead of throwing the brick, Charlie acts as if he's examining it, appraising its condition, and then he wipes it off carefully and returns it to its original spot. In that brief bit, just for a few seconds, Chaplin demonstrates his characteristic finesse and makes viewing this short worth the time it takes to do so.