Latest
SMS Appointment RemindersDarrell Stern: Stop Being Invisible, Become UnmissableFree BooksJoe Rockey: Ghostwriting His BookHow to Turn Your Expertise Into a Book People Want to Read | The Expert MethodWhat’s New at The Writing King: Week of October 25, 2026Challenger Remembrance Day: The Engineer Who Wouldn’t SignJoel Salomon: The Truth About MoneyReddit Is Putting Up a Login Wall. Wikipedia Won’t Be Far Behind.Victoria Chemko: The Body Is the First TechnologySir Patrick Stewart: A TributeA Year in the Bank: ADHD, Face Blindness and the Freedom to Walk Out | The Impossible Puzzles Show, Episode 326A Yale Economist Says We Won’t Be Missed. He Forgot the Bread Line.Walter Koenig: A TributeAI Has Paid Off Outside Tech. Apollo Is Reading the Wrong Scoreboard.I Don’t Post Bad ARC Reviews. I Send the Author a Note.The Little Red Book of Stuff That Works!Your Kids Are Your Own FaultGrow a PairYou’re Broke Because You Want to BeIt’s Called Work for a Reason!No Time for TactShut Up, Stop Whining, and Get a LifeWilliam Bessette: AI Enablement and Child Welfare TechnologyFree Book Planning ToolsWhat’s New at The Writing King: Week of October 18, 2026Ghostwriting by the Numbers: Timelines, Word Counts and the First CallPromising Young Woman (2020) ReviewBillions for AI, Pennies for the Plumbing: AI Companies Should Pay to Keep PHP AlivePHP2Shell: AI Found a 22-Year-Old Crack Under Your Website in Two DaysPetrov Day: The Officer Who Didn’t Believe the ComputerKindle Unlimited Is Now Kindle+. AI Audiobooks Just Joined the BuffetMo Gawdat Says the AI Dystopia Starts in 2027. Read the List, Skip the DatesChina Is Using Bots to Fan the Data Center Backlash. The Backlash Is Still Real.The Society of Authors Signed an Ethical AI Charter, Then Ran From It in Eight DaysWhen to Quit Writing a Book: I’ve Abandoned Dozens, and I’d Do It AgainGetty Images Filed for Bankruptcy. Can You Prove You Licensed Your Book’s Images?Fluff Words: Cut Them From Your Prose, Keep Them in Your DialogueWhere Can Writers Learn Storytelling From Movies? Richard Lowe Publishes 1,226 Film and TV Reviews With Writing Craft NotesWhere Are the Independent Bookstores and Public Libraries Worth Visiting in Tampa Bay? Author Richard Lowe Profiles 44 of ThemWhat Should You Know Before Hiring a Ghostwriter? The Writing King Publishes 57 New Answers, Including What to Do When It Goes WrongWhere Can You Hear Founders and Executives Tell Their Own Stories? Richard Lowe’s Leaders and Their Stories Publishes Every Unscripted Interview With a Full TranscriptAuthor Richard Lowe Publishes Eight Volumes of Enemies of You, a Researched Series on the Forces Working Against Ordinary AmericansThe Jackal (1997) ReviewThe Day of the Jackal (2024) ReviewYour First Novel Is an Apprentice Piece: What Beta Readers and Editors Can’t FixWhen the Cloud Gets Bombed: What the AWS Data Center Strikes Teach About BackupsHuman-Written Book Labels Are Gatekeeping With a FeeThe Enshittification of Microsoft Office: Why I Switched to a Free CloneGlobal Encryption Day: The Padlock Every Writer Depends On

In the Mood for Love (2000)

TL;DR: In the Mood for Love carries an IMDb score of 8.1 out of 10. There’s no rating from me here, because I haven’t seen it. Wong Kar-wai’s 1962 Hong Kong drama follows two neighbors who discover their spouses are having an affair, and it’s regularly named among the greatest films ever made.
In the Mood for Love (2000)
IMDb 8.1 / 10

Official trailer

In the Mood for Love is the film that turns up at the top of critics’ lists and stays there. The rating on this page is IMDb’s, since I haven’t watched it. Wong Kar-wai directed. Tony Leung plays a journalist and Maggie Cheung plays a secretary, neighbors in a crowded Hong Kong apartment building in 1962 who work out that his wife and her husband are having an affair with each other.

What they do about it is the film. They meet, they rehearse conversations, they try to understand how it started, and they refuse to become what their spouses became.

What I know of this film comes from clips and stills, and the look alone stops me cold. Those saturated reds and cramped hallways, with Maggie Cheung walking to buy noodles in slow motion while the waltz plays, are images I could stare at for an hour. I’m a sucker for a story where two people want something and won’t take it, and this seems to be the purest version of that anybody’s put on screen.

The Premise

Two couples move into rooms in the same building on the same day. The spouses of the two leads are constantly away on business, always at the same time, and the film never shows either of their faces.

Mr Chow and Mrs Chan work it out slowly, from a handbag and a tie that turn up in the wrong places. Once they know, they meet to ask each other how it must have begun, and they act out the conversations their partners might have had.

That role-play is the film’s engine. Rehearsing somebody else’s affair is how two restrained people get close without admitting they’re doing it.

The role-play is the idea I admire most here. Two wounded people rehearsing their spouses’ affair is a cruel, clever way to let them get close, and it gives every one of those conversations a second meaning they both pretend not to hear.

The Restraint

Nothing happens, and that’s what most writing about the film comes back to. The two leads never act on what they feel. The film keeps them in corridors, stairwells and noodle shops, passing each other, and the closest they get is a hand held for a second.

That restraint is a period detail as much as a personal one. 1962 Hong Kong is a small world of shared kitchens and watchful landladies, where an affair would be public within a day.

It’s also why the film has the reputation it has. Audiences accustomed to consummation find it unbearable in the best sense: two hours of deferral with no release. I think the film is right to hold them back. If they gave in, they’d turn into their spouses and the ache would drain out of the story. A hand held for a second does more for me than any love scene could.

For Writers

Wong builds two hours on what his characters refuse to do, and the tension never slackens. Withheld action is stronger than action, as long as the reader knows exactly what’s being withheld. When you write restraint, make the want unmistakable and the obstacle immovable, then hold. Take a scene where your characters come close and pull back. Cut the moment where one of them explains why. The reader will supply it, and what they supply will be sharper than anything you’d have written.

Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung

Leung plays Chow as a man holding himself very still, and the performance is built almost entirely on what he doesn’t allow onto his face. It won him best actor at Cannes, and it’s the work he’s best known for outside Hong Kong.

Cheung’s Mrs Chan is the harder part, because the film puts her under constant observation: by the landlady, by the neighbors, by the camera. Every gesture is being watched, and Cheung plays somebody who knows it.

They’d worked with Wong before, on Days of Being Wild and Ashes of Time, and the shorthand shows. Two people with this much history can play a scene about not saying something and make the silence specific. Leung got the prize at Cannes, but from everything I’ve read and seen in clips, Cheung has the harder job. Playing a woman who knows she’s being watched, in a film that never stops watching her, sounds like the kind of discipline I find more impressive than any big dramatic scene.

For Writers

Both leads act mostly through what they withhold, and the audience reads the pressure behind it because the situation is airtight. Suppressed emotion only reads when the reader knows exactly what’s being suppressed. When you write a restrained character, make their circumstances so clear that the reader supplies the feeling. Write the scene where a character says nothing. Then check the surrounding pages make what they aren’t saying unmistakable.

How It Looks

Christopher Doyle and Mark Lee Ping-bing shot it, and the look is as famous as the story: saturated reds and golds, cramped frames, doorways and mirrors cutting the characters into pieces, and slow motion used for people walking to buy noodles.

Maggie Cheung wears more than twenty different cheongsams across the film, and the changes mark time in a story that otherwise refuses to tell you how much has passed. The camera watches from behind objects and around corners, so the audience is placed as a neighbor would be: seeing a fragment, guessing the rest.

The Music

Shigeru Umebayashi’s Yumeji’s Theme, a waltz written for a different film, plays over the slow-motion sequences and has become inseparable from this one. Nat King Cole’s Spanish-language recordings fill the rest, a deliberate anachronism. The songs place the film in a version of 1962 that’s remembered instead of documented. The repetition is the method. The same theme returns under the same kind of moment until the audience feels the loop the characters are trapped in. The music is where I’m most firmly on the film’s side. Bringing Yumeji’s Theme back again and again under the same kind of moment is a bold choice, and I think it’s the right one. Every return of that waltz tightens the loop a little more.

For Writers

The same waltz returns under the same kind of scene until the audience recognizes the pattern and starts to feel time passing inside it. Repetition with slight variation is how you make a reader feel duration. When you want to show years of the same ache, repeat a scene shape with small differences instead of summarizing the period. Choose a recurring situation your characters return to. Change one element each time, and let the reader measure the distance. Time passing is a feeling.

The Ending

The film ends in Angkor Wat in 1966, with Chow whispering a secret into a hollow in a stone wall and sealing it with mud, an old practice the film explains a moment before he does it.

They’ve missed each other by minutes more than once by that point, in a building they both left and later returned to.

That closing image is why the film sits where it does on the lists. The story ends with a man burying something he will never say to anyone, and that’s the whole film in a single shot.

Its Standing

It won best actor at Cannes for Tony Leung, appears near the top of the Sight and Sound critics’ poll, and is routinely named the best film of the 2000s in international polls.

Wong made it in chaotic conditions, shooting for over a year without a finished script and cutting a great deal, including material that became the follow-up, 2046. An IMDb score of 8.1 is high for a subtitled art film, since that audience is self-selecting. The critical standing is higher still.

Craft Note

Craft Note

Wong spends two hours on a relationship that never happens and makes it unbearable through repetition, restraint and one recurring piece of music. Give your reader an unmistakable want and then refuse it, and the refusal becomes the story. What a character won’t do defines them faster than anything they will.

Is In the Mood for Love worth watching?

IMDb users have it at 8.1, critics rate it higher still, and it appears near the top of most rankings of the greatest films of this century. The photography, the music and the two lead performances are the reasons.

There’s no rating from me on this page, since I haven’t seen it. The 8.1 looks earned to me, and if anything a touch low, because a subtitled film about two people not having an affair doesn’t score that well with a general crowd unless it’s doing something special. If you want a film where two people spend two hours not doing the obvious thing, this is the one everybody names, and the closing shot at Angkor Wat is the image I’d most want to see in its full context.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is In the Mood for Love about?
Two neighbors in a crowded Hong Kong apartment building in 1962 discover that his wife and her husband are having an affair with each other. They meet to work out how it started, rehearsing their spouses’ conversations, and grow close without ever acting on it.
Do the main characters get together?
No, and that’s the film’s subject. They meet constantly, rehearse other people’s conversations and refuse to become what their spouses became. The restraint, in a world of shared kitchens and watchful neighbors, is what gives the film its tension.
Who directed In the Mood for Love?
Wong Kar-wai, with cinematography by Christopher Doyle and Mark Lee Ping-bing. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung star. Leung won best actor at Cannes for the role, and the film was shot over more than a year without a finished script.
Why is In the Mood for Love so highly rated?
For its restraint, its photography and its music. It appears near the top of the Sight and Sound critics’ poll and is often named the best film of the 2000s. The saturated color, Maggie Cheung’s cheongsams and the recurring waltz are among the most imitated elements in modern cinema.
What is the music in In the Mood for Love?
Yumeji’s Theme by Shigeru Umebayashi, a waltz written for another film, used under the slow-motion sequences. Nat King Cole’s Spanish-language recordings fill out the soundtrack, a deliberate anachronism that places the film in a remembered version of 1962.
What happens at the end of In the Mood for Love?
Chow travels to Angkor Wat in 1966 and whispers his secret into a hollow in a stone wall, then seals it with mud, following an old practice the film describes moments earlier. It’s the film’s final image and the reason so many viewers remember it.

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.