Metascore

Generally favorable reviews - based on 22 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 22 Ratings

  • Summary: Hou Hsiao-hsien delivers one of the most rapturously beautiful and romantic movies of the year. Told as three love stories, each set in a different era -- a 1966 pool hall, a 1911 brothel and present day Taipei. The film stars the same actors in all three sections -- Shu Qi and Chang Chen. (IFC Films) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 22
  2. Negative: 0 out of 22
  1. 100
    Three varieties of love: unfulfilled, mercenary, meaningless. All photographed with such visual beauty that watching the movie is like holding your breath so the butterfly won’t stir.
  2. Three Times is great cinema, pop romance that carries a special charge.
  3. 80
    In these three potent miniatures, Hou Hsiao-hsien suggests that time passes differently when you're deeply in love. He captures the mystical quality of that time on film, making us feel as if we're living in it, rather than simply watching it.
  4. Three Times offers a careful examination of the changing ways people have reacted to each other during the past 100 years. As such, it's an interesting essay but certainly a minor work from a master.

See all 22 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 12
  2. Negative: 6 out of 12
  1. JV
    10
    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
  2. JustinS.
    7
    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
  3. JoshC
    4
    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. Collapse
  4. BobA.
    4
    A mess of a film. It would be correct to say that the theme is: love manifests itself differently through time. But most films prefer to explore their theme. This one is content to state it and be done. People looking for entertainment will be bored to death. People looking for thoughtfulness won't find much new here except for self-conscious, even gimmicky art. Expand

See all 12 User Reviews

Trailers