I love this movie so much

Pretty Good

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

There are great aspects of Three Times, but overall the film falls short of entertaining. The camerawork is quite lovely, especially the long takes, as it gives the piece a very special rhythm. The characterization is meaningful yet shallow in all three stories, which makes it hard to connect thoroughly with the characters. The first story is fantastically charming, but the second is beautifully dull, and the third failed to bring this viewer back into the picture. Three Times is an art piece, and should be viewed as such. The majority of modern movie-goers would not enjoy this film, but it does have merit, and this reviewer can most accurately described it as an experiment in cinema.

It's so amusing to read the adoring, slavishly reverent attitudes of viewers who, I can only surmise, can not bring themselves to poo-poo an art film that so many critics have championed. This film is a disaster. There is no narrative to speak of in any of the three stories. The characters act as if embalmed. Scenes unfold at a glacial pace and sequences are repeated ad nauseam, e.g., the pool playing in the first story. The second segment should be laughed off the screen. How pretentious to watch the characters lips moving and then be shown in titles what they just said. This is film-making at the college sophomore level. And the third part is just one giant cliché about alienated youth. Just imagine!!! They have sex, they sing about being different, and they look at the Internet and find kinky Web sites. Shocking!! Don't believe the hype on this one. There is NOTHING there.

With all the great acclaim this film received, and with none other than Shu Qi starring in it, I was really looking forward to it. Unfortunately, it was a huge disappointment. And I'm someone who liked "Millennium Mambo," another Hou Hsao-Hsien/Shu Qi collaboration.Probably the most generous thing I can say about this movie is that it does not translate well for Western audiences.And since a number of people here are "voting" for which of the three stories worked the best for them, I'd have to go with the 1911 story.Shu Qi is one of the most beautiful women in the world, but even that couldn't make me enjoy how slow and boring this very long film was.

This film is a darling of the critics. Roger Ebert gave it four stars; A. O. Scott of the NY Times describes it, on the DVD's box, as "a masterpiece," adding, "this is why cinema exists." That being the case, if you are, or aspire to be, a devotee of cinema, then this film may be required viewing. But if your sensibilities run toward (mere) movies, beware.The film, set in Taiwan and China, depicts three love stories -- set in three historical periods: 1911, 1966, and 2005 -- using the same actor and actress. The problem, simply put, is that "Three Times" moves at a glacial pace and little happens. As one of the few critics not to wax euphoric put it, "if this movie moved any slower it could qualify as a photograph." When each segment ended, and when the final credits rolled, the question plaintively asked by Peggy Lee came to mind: Is that all there is?