Three Times

Minimalist cinema without any sense of direction to it, all three segments never getting close to the emotions they pretend to have, the first failing to be a Wong Kar-Wai creation badly and the second with an arbitrary use of silent movie captions that undermines what little effect the whole work had. The entire thing feels like a luxury box of chocolates that's completely empty.

Highly conceptual, like a Kieslowski film or a Calvino novel. The same two actors play different couples in three separate stories: different time periods, in different stages of a relationship. The first is the best, then they get progressively less satisfying. What saves Three Times from a lower score is the gorgeous imagery.

Though, the first segment is easily an 89

Dull, pretentious to the point of parody – there is no thematic or emotional resonances to link the stories (though there’s something satisfying about seeing flagrant consummation in Part 3 after the fairly chaste 1 & 2); Qi and Chen try their best perpetually stuck with emotionless ciphers, making it difficult to become invested (or even believe) in their romance(s). Crafted with a great deal of care by Hou, but this never succeeds as any sort of rumination on romance or as a mood piece.

The first segment remain my favorite thing Hou's ever done.

Great - and very stylishly filmed - portraits of life in three different time periods. I hoped to see them woven together in other ways than just through the use of the same actors, though. The first vignette was the strongest; the others felt a little meandering.

Three Times refers to the triptych structure of Hou's meditation on love in different eras, but it also describes at least how many times I dozed off. I swear Hou could film a UFC match and turn it into a rigorously arty exercise in minimalism. Only the first tale has any punch, the other dissipate before their lengthy shots conclude.

The second story is a film student exercise. The rest of it, take it or leave it, as you will is brilliant. The first story quantifies the extent of where we will go to find a person that shows even a glimmer of interest in our life. The second is a standard tale of unrequited affection. It's the saddest but also the most conventional story. It doesn't deaden the impact but the silent film treatment was unnecessary and manipulative. The last is a contemporary tale of identity crisis.

First act is great, second is alright, third is dull.

First segment is my favorite of the three, but overall I really liked it. Hou Hsiao-Hsien's most approachable film I've seen so far is also my favorite of his so far. That first scene is seriously incredible.

All the points are for visuals. It features so many cliches and so much trite crap. Rain and Tears is no California Dreamin and this is no Chungking. It's kind of like reading Pynchon instead of Joyce or Amis instead of Nabokov. Not worth doing.

Like a lot of reviews here say, the first act is masterful but the rest doesn't really hold up

"An act of auteurist self-reflexivity in keeping with the director's belief in the powerful influence of history on the here and now." - Nick Schager

I loved the first part (1966). The second and third parts weren't that great to me.

I continue to be fond of this film, which begins with its most accessible and inviting portrait of sexual and/or romantic relations. That it then moves on by going backward in history deepens our understanding of the relational structures that made the 1960s segment possible, a move that both enlightens and disturbs our picture of the innocence of "back then." When the final segment transitions to contemporary time, we find the structures of the 1910s and the romance of the 1960s erased.

enjoyed the first and the third, the second one just bored me to death.

Well, the first story is excellent, the second one is ... interestingly done, and the third one is a duller and more hopeless Millenium Mambo. Enjoyable for Hou fans and maybe a good place to start for newcomers.