Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Michael_Elliott 3 Men and a Baby (1987) *** (out of 4) Remake of a French movie about three bachelors (Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, Ted Danson) whose lives are turned upside down when one of their former lovers drops off a baby girl at their door. Soon the three men have to put their lives on hold while they try and figure out the way to take care of a baby. 3 MEN AND A BABY was one of the biggest hits of the decade and it's easy to see why because it just has crowd pleaser written all over it. That's certainly not to say that it's the perfect movie because there are way too many flaws for that but in the end there's no denying that there are plenty of laughs and all sorts of cuteness. I think the weakest part of the film is an entire subplot dealing with some heroin being dropped off at the boy's apartment and them unknowingly getting involved with a bunch of crooks. Revisiting the film after so many years had me rather shocked at how much time is actually spent on this and it simply should have been cut. I know this happened in the original movie but when you're dealing with laughs and charm some of this stuff just goes over-the-top and all the time spent on it just takes away from the men and the baby. The film is at its strongest when the screenplay just lets the men do their thing. Selleck, Guttenberg and Danson all have their own style of comedy and the film greatly benefits when they're allowed to just do their thing. Selleck is certainly the strongest of the group but he is the lead and given the majority of the strong stuff including a hilarious bit inside a store when he's trying to figure out what type of food to get the baby. Guttenberg is also extremely effective with the child and this gives the film a lot of its charm. Twin girls were used for the part of the baby and even though they didn't have to "act", the child is so cute and adorable you can't help but fall in love with her just as the three men are doing in the movie. Again, this film is far from flawless but at the same time it's hard to not get sucked into the story and bowled over with its charm.

Aaron1375 Yes, if we are to believe this movie men who do not have a female present have absolutely no idea how to raise a baby are do anything. Not only is this child left in the care of one guy, but three all of which have no clue how to raise a baby and are completely lost, so all three roommates were only children are had no younger siblings to take care of. If this is the case then you can easily title this movie Three women and a baby as they would be just as lost in that scenario as a guy would be, but for some reason people think women just magically know what to do and men are idiots when it comes to children. The three idiots in question here are Tom Selleck and Ted Danson, known mainly for television work and Steve Guttenberg known mainly for being really lucky to have a Hollywood career. This film is also known for starring a cardboard cutout of a boy who was supposedly a ghost of some kid who blew his brains out by accident in the apartment where this film was shot even though all interior shots of the place were on a set. One has to wonder how much of this movie's success came from the story and how much came from idiots who wanted to see this movie cause they thought there was a ghost in it. In the end, this film is like a long list of crappy films that have babies and idiots raising them and for me it was not very good. I like Ted Danson, but he is basically doing his Sam Malone here, in fact in every movie he was in during this era he was usually in Sam Malone character. However, he is the best thing in the movie and has the funniest moments while Selleck and Guttenberg play lame clueless idiots.

chasereid2001 OK. I read the whole arguing thread and I have a new twist. I saw the movie in the theater in 87' with two friends of mine. We saw a boy in the scene in question crouch from one set of curtains and scoot to the other set of curtains containing the Ted Danson cutout. We walked out of the theater and laughed about it saying how we couldn't believe that they missed this "goof" letting a kid on stage or something.Fast forward two years and everyone is talking about a ghost in the movie. We felt at the time we knew what they were talking about as we had seen it. But when we rented the video what we saw was not there??? It had been cut out from the movie. Just the stupid cutout of Ted Danson that they show earlier in the movie more clearly and everyone seems intent to argue over. These two guys are still good friends of mine and I'm glad they were there because I believe we saw the real ghost or a kid on the lot and they saw it with me. We talk about it all the time.I don't know why they wouldn't leave it in, but my guess is, a ghost to argue about makes more $$$$True story.

moni Am I the first one to notice that this is a blatant remake of the great french movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090206/ named "Three man and a cradle" ? Am I the first one to notice that Hollywood once again steals and does that in purpose?In general, the performances are good, but if you want the real thing, watch "Trois hommes et un couffin" instead. Get the subtitled version regardless if you speak French or not. I can guarantee satisfaction :)5/10 from me.And just because I need 10 lines to finish this review - This is all I wanted to say.