Simply beautiful trilogy of vignettes about individuals yearning for love and freedom!

In the 20 years that they've played at festivals, with almost no distribution in the U.S., the films of Taiwan's Hou Hsiao-hsien have evolved from a cult into a conspiracy: Here are movies, say the Hou faithful, so refined and subtle and poetic that the Man won't even let you see them. Three Times is the second Hou film to receive an American release, and as you watch its trio of linked stories, which feature the same two actors (Shu Qi and Chang Chen) romantically entangled in different periods and settings, you can see why his fans revere him — and also hear why his sensibility is pitched too high even for art-house ears. The first story, ''A Time for Love,'' is by far the best. Set in 1966, it features Chang as a soldier who haunts a billiards parlor, where his courtship of one of the pool-hall girls — Shu, as a sultry stalk of a temptress — blossoms with a modicum of words and gestures. This is a love story in which the chemistry is all there is, and Hou stages it with delicate nostalgia, using the tinkly pop melancholy of Aphrodite's Child's 1968 single ''Rain and Tears'' to express how love finds its essence in the fear of loss. If every Hou film were this touching, perhaps he wouldn't be world cinema's greatest footnote. Yet Three Times is a diminishing achievement: ''A Time for Freedom,'' a pseudo-silent set in a brothel in 1911, echoes Hou's more fascinating (and corrosive) Flowers of Shanghai (1998), and ''A Time for Youth'' replays the rudderless lost-generation dithering of Millennium Mambo (2001). Do Hou's films deserve to be seen? Absolutely, if only to end the myth that they're too perfect for this world.… Expand

Should have been renamed "Barely 1 Time" -- had to walk out because it was torture. Minimalist dialogue is ok if and when you speak it's more than "want to stay for lunch?"..."no "..."Ok, see you next time" This film tries to be artsy without any plot or decent dialogue. I felt like I was being tortured. Being a fan of Chinese films, I now have to take Taiwan off the list.

One of the most overrated filmmakers working anywhere in the last 25 years. This is yet another of his banal films. The first section is great,and heartfelt, the second is boring, and the third is a muddled mess that plays like outtakes from another bad Hou movie "Mambo". This film demonstrates why Hou is cinemas greatest footnote. He makes cold and pasionless films for smug critics and nobody else.… Expand

There are only two nice things I can say about this movie: 1. This film might have been a huge hit in China, but it doesn't translate well for American audiences. 2. Shu Qi is the most beautiful woman in the world.

Three Times (actually, I think the Chinese title is The Best of Times) is an outstanding work of art! Hsiao-hsien Hou has created a symphony in three movements that speaks to the depth of his intellect as a writer and director. The magnificent artistic skill of the camera lens, the profound simplicity of the images caste in three radically different histories, and the captivating recursive complexity of the story place work in the rarefied realm of great cinema. If you know film and have not seen Three Times, a gem awaits you.… Expand

I regretted taking that nap before seeing the film. The reviews were wildly overdone on this inert film. The opaque story lines was comparable to the primitive cinematic style, both soporific.

An utter unintelligible unmitigated travesty. Watching the paint peel on your walls at home is a far better activity than patronizing this absurd utter waste of a movie. My god what a waste, a complete and utter waste of my and everyone’s time. And I'm sad that my local art house theater choose to show this vacuous film.

This movie is decent, but has quite a few flaws. It provides glimpses of Taiwan over the last 90+ years from an unusual perspective and establishes the atmosphere well. Still it has a few flaws. First the pacing, as noted, is excruciatingly slow with minimal dialogue and the "dialogue" in the second part hearkens back to silent films, using title cards. It feels like the director is trying too hard to be artsy. Also, I never got a good feel for [i]why[/i] the characters are attracted to each other. The main characters in the second part seemed to act in a way that was overly modern and anachronistic. I rather doubt a courtesan and a scholar or intellectual in 1911 would act the way the character did towards each other. Last, if there is some overarching point to this movie, I completely missed it.… Expand

An ambitious and practically transcendent piece of filmmaking. It's rare that a director has the intelligence to capture history so poetically, and it's flat out audacious for one to envision a future that is so bleak and hopeless.