Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

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

Roger Burke When I saw Distant (2002) by the same director, Nuri Ceylan, I was suitably impressed with his cinematic technique: sparse dialog, enclosed simple sets, very long takes, long static shots, little or no music sound track, minimal cast of characters – and essentially allows the story to unfold by simply observing what people do. The next film of Ceylan's I saw, Climates (2006), used similar techniques and followed a similar pattern; but I liked Distant more, at that time.With this one, Nuri Ceyaln has proved that he is truly a master of visual story-telling. Moreover, this is a more compelling and a more intense story than the above two because it delves into the daily, banal evil that occurs – and is often covered up – in families in all cultures in real life, all of which is implicitly contained within the title. Curiously, as a boy long ago whenever I visited my paternal grandmother, I would almost always pick up the same ornament – a trio of monkeys in a row and in appropriate poses – with the words Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil inscribed in the base. At that time, I thought it was quite funny to look at...This story illustrates those frailties when Servet (Ercan Kesal), a local businessman and wannabe politician, accidentally kills a pedestrian with his car at night and desperately pressures his chauffeur, Eyup (Yavuz Bingol) to take the rap for him – for a good price – which inevitably leads to the spiral of doubt, distrust and evil that eventually overshadows Eyup, his wife, Hacer (Hatice Aslan) and his son, Ismail (Ahmet Sungar). And throughout the story, the lack of dialog heightens the disconnect that grows between the father, mother and son, all of whom live at the top of a reasonably affluent blocks of apartments overlooking a railway which parallels a freeway, and with the open sea as a backdrop .Those who know Ceylan's films know he likes long, static takes in either extremely long shot or medium to extreme close up; so, viewers won't be disappointed at all. Coupled with Ceylan's proclivity to have the actors face on to the camera more than any other director I've seen (and without breaking the fourth wall), viewers can savor and even wonder at the effect the actors have upon them as they watch – an effect so strong that I, at least, actually have the feeling of being there; and in this film particularly.Complications continue, though, when Hacer thinks she is falling in love with Servet (who is married, of course) after he seduces her just once; thereafter, she won't let him go, much to his displeasure and despite his threats directed to her. And, after Eyup is released from prison nine months later, things really go down the toilet when he begins to suspect what we, as voyeurs, know already; and they reach rock bottom when Servet is found dead, murdered. Meanwhile, young Ismail attempts to make his way in the world while silently witnessing his parents' difficulties.Overshadowing the family's problems is the poignant memory of the son who apparently drowned while still very young – a recollection that still affects all three.One thing, of course, always leads to another. But here, not only is the resolution of the murder a surprise, but the aftermath is what really got me: a totally unexpected, but deliciously ironic narrative closure that makes diabolical sense in yet another oh-so-real-life story about the devil's playground viz. human relationships.Do see this movie from one of the best directors in the world today. And take note of the quality of the actors and the stunning photography – particularly the long, final shot of Eyup atop his apartment as he looks out to sea – while you are entertained with a story as old as antiquity. I look forward to seeing Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. I hope you also feel the same.Highly recommended – but definitely not for action/thriller fans and rev-heads.March 8, 2012

cgyford Critically acclaimed Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan ("Distant" & "Climates") cemented his previous success with this slow-burning neo-noir which won him the Best Director Award at the 61st Cannes Film Festival and was Turkey's unsuccessful submission for the 81st Academy Awards' Best Foreign Language Film Oscar amongst a slew of Yeşilçam Awards and international film accolades.When family man Eyüp (Yavuz Bingöl) goes to prison for a hit-and-run committed by his wannabe politician boss Servet (Ercan Kesal), his wife Hacer (Hatice Aslan) and wayward son İsmail (Ahmet Rıfat Şungar) find their lives beginning to fall apart, and the process is only expedited by Eyüp's release some nine months later.Popular Turkish folk singer Yavuz Bingöl presents a wonderfully hunched and dishevelled presence at the head of a family that features the haggard beauty of Hatice Aslan and the angst ridden brow of Ahmet Rıfat Şungar who both won Yeşilçam Awards as well as the occasional unwelcome interference of sweaty co-writer Ercan Kesal.The Yeşilçam Award-winning cinematography of Gökhan Tiryaki ("Alone" & "Climates") transforms Istanbul into a suitably dark and brooding backdrop for the bare-bone story-line of Nuri Bilge Ceylan et al, but the dark beauty of the cinematography isn't quite enough to hold attention and the film begins to drag long before the leaden denouement."Do we have anyone else?"

timmy_501 The three monkeys in the title of this film refer to both the classic "See No Evil, Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil" maxim and to the compact family of three depicted in the film. These three characters are Eyup, his wife Hacer, and their son Ismail. Each of these people seem to live by the maxim of the monkeys so much that they hardly talk to each other at all. Events unfold with a tragic inevitability after Eyup agrees to confess to a crime committed by his boss Servet to shield him from political disgrace in exchange for a large payoff. The shattered family then attempts to go on about their lives as if nothing had ever happened, even when more things do happen. Problems that normally would be relatively routine when faced by a united family thus become a devastating cycle that threatens to destroy their lives.The material here is good but it likely would have devolved into histrionic melodrama in the hands of a less restrained director. Ceylan is a minimalist and as such he tends to allow the actions of the character to speak for themselves. In a way the lack of exposition puts the viewer in a similar situation to that of the family; we don't know exactly what they are thinking either.Ceylan's greatest strength is in visuals: his landscapes look unlike anyone else's. The colors are often desaturated; I generally think this visual technique is a mistake but it looks great in his films. Like all Ceylan films, Three Monkeys is worth seeing for the indescribable visuals alone, but this film in particular also offers a perfectly executed family tragedy. Ceylan really outdid himself this time, this is one of the best films of the decade.

bartekfm As a kind of cultural globalization takes over world cinema, one should be grateful for directors such as the Hungarian Béla Tarr, the Romanian Cristian Mungiu, the Iranians Abbas Kiarostami and Bahman Ghobadi and the Turkish Nuri Bilge Ceylan who keep alive a personal, regional and stylistically individual form of film-making. Their work is never likely to become widely popular at home or abroad, but they're beacons of hope for the future of a troubled art.A photographer by profession, Ceylan turned to film-making in the mid-90s and works largely with non-professional actors and small budgets. He belongs in the tradition of Tarkovsky, Bergman, Antonioni, Angelopoulos and other masters that seemed in the 60s and 70s to be on the point of becoming a new or, at least, parallel mainstream but has now been marginalised. His new film, The Three Monkeys, like its two predecessors, won a major award at Cannes, in this case the prize for best director, and it begins with that familiar dramatic device for the creation of tension, guilt and dangerous consequences - the hit-and-run accident.Here, a man kills a pedestrian at night on a country road. It transpires that he is a politician, Servet, and in order for the event not to affect a forthcoming election he bribes his driver Eyüp, who wasn't with him on this occasion, to take the rap. He'll go on getting paid during his nine-month sentence and at the end will receive a decent pay-off.The title is a reference to the Sino-Japanese image of the three wise monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, suggesting this film is a moral fable about the consequences of evasion, corruption and suppression. Servet thinks he's doing what's best for his party and the country: he's a supporter of Prime Minister Erdogan and the occasion is the 2007 general election that ended in a landslide victory. Eyüp believes he's acting like a good servant, but, more important, he's getting the money that will get a better home for his handsome wife Hacer and provide for the education of his teenage son Ismail.Nothing good comes of these actions. One way and another, everyone's life is affected, indeed in some measure destroyed, but like much else in the film the judgments are left to the viewer. Are we dealing with national problems of widespread social corruption, with the weaknesses of a set of individuals or the operation of a malignant fate of a kind that stalks us all? From the start, Ceylan draws us into the very narrative fabric. In the opening scene, using silence, long takes, available light and dramatic compositions, he makes us ask questions about what we are seeing. Who is this man? What has he done? How will he react? There are long gaps in time between individual sequences and seemingly important facts are never made plain.Ismail comes home with a badly cut hand and a bruised face, but he never reveals to his mother, or to us, whether these wounds came from brawling or from political demonstrations. They have the effect, however, of persuading her to visit the politician and seek an advance on the bribe to buy a car for the boy. This in turn leads to an affair, which is only discovered when Ismail returns home early to find his mother making love to Servet. When Eyüp emerges from jail, he's furious about the car and his suspicions over his wife's infidelity seem confirmed by a message on her cell phone. For most of the film, the images are desaturated, but during the scene of reunion, Hacer is wearing a red slip, which both excites her husband and drives him to violence.In the family's background is the death of another son, some 15 years earlier, and his father and surviving brother are haunted by visions of this loss. In the future lies a repetition of the incident that launches the film, only here the conspiracy is initiated by Eyüp. Though perhaps not quite as good as Climates, Ceylan's last picture, this is a film of formidable power that sticks in the mind.Two sequences in particular stand out. In one, the politician rejects the obsessed Hacer with great brutality, but the camera is placed nearly 50 yards away across a field. In the other, the film's closing long shot, the husband stands on the balcony of their ramshackle apartment block to the south of Istanbul, his back to the camera, looking out over the Sea of Marmara as an electric storm begins to stir.