Smoreni Zmaj To be completely honest, if we put nostalgia for 80's and childhood aside, together with everything being so sweet and cute, this movie is really a crap. Too shallow for a drama and fails as a comedy too cause I did not laugh once. But nostalgia and cuteness... <36/10

Spikeopath Three bachelors have their lives flipped upside down when little baby Mary is left on their doorstep.A remake of successful 1985 French film Three Men And A Cradle, this Hollywood version took the box office by storm to make a domestic profit of over $155,000,000. It's not hard to see why really. Yes it looks a touch twee now, and the irritating drug-smuggling sub-plot (also in the original) grows more tiresome with subsequent revisits. Yet it has a frothy cleanness so lacking in many more similar big budgeted movies that came after it. Starring Tom Selleck, Ted Danson and Steve Guttenberg as the "no parenting skills" bachelors, Leonard Nimoy's film , (yes, Spock) sees quality interplay between the guys and some bona fide funny sequences as they in turn attempt to do right by Mary. Yep it's all telegraphed comedy, and the ending holds no surprises for anyone once Nancy Travis as Mary's mother comes back to claim the child. But come on folks, three beefy bachelors trying to change diapers and entertain a wailing baby has to be charming; surely? 7/10

Benjamin Cox Having reacquainted myself with this implausible Eighties classic this afternoon, there were a number of things that took me by surprise. The first surprise was the director, Leonard "Spock" Nimoy, who I imagine felt quite out of his depth when he directed something as polar opposite to "Star Trek" as this. The second was recalling a time when actors like Tom Selleck, Ted Danson and Steve Guttenberg was seriously big-time stars. I also had no idea it was a remake of a French original, also making this the most successful US remake of a French film in history. The last thing that surprised me was given the high esteem this movie is held in was how largely forgettable, implausible and not especially entertaining the whole thing was. It has flashes of brilliance but sadly, these are all too infrequent.Selleck, Danson and Guttenberg are three bachelors living the high life in a New York apartment. When actor Jack (Danson) flies off to Turkey for filming, artist Michael (Guttenberg) and architect Peter (Selleck) are left to hold the fort when, unexpectedly, a baby appears on their doorstep - apparently belonging to Jack. As their lives begin falling apart at the seams trying to care for little Mary, things take a turn for the ugly when hoodlums turn up to pick up another package of Jack's from Turkey - smuggled heroin.The impression I got watching "Three Men And A Baby" was that it wasn't enough having the three leads fannying about Mary who cries, gurgles and coos about as often as possible. So the whole drug sub-plot was crudely shoved into place to give the film some momentum but by doing this, it nearly completely wrecked the film for me. None of it felt the slightest bit believable and aside from Selleck and Guttenberg, most of the characters were fairly unlikeable. As for those two, the only real difference between them is that Selleck is much hairier and that's it. Even Mary's mother (Nancy Travis) wasn't particularly sympathetic and to be frank, I wanted to give Social Services a call to come in and take poor Mary off the pair of them. However, this film is not a complete loss. There are some good bits in there (I quite enjoyed Selleck's scene in the supermarket trying to buy the right stuff) and Mary herself (played jointly by infant sisters Lisa & Michelle Blair) is very watchable, as most babies are. It's just a shame that it went off the rails in the middle because I didn't feel that the movie needed any further pushing towards its typically sugar-coated climax.Assuming that you can stand the enormous retro-trip this movie puts you on, I'm struggling to see why new viewers should seek out "Three Men And A Baby". I suppose it's nice to see a baby-centred film that doesn't rely too much of comedic slapstick (I'm thinking primarily of "Baby's Day Out" here) but a bit more comedy and a little less drama might have helped its cause. Such as it is, this movie remains little more than a pleasant time-passer even if you can see what will happen come the end. Selleck, Danson and Guttenberg are perfectly competent actors who also possess decent comic timing but making movies such as this was never likely to launch any of them into the stratosphere and before long, two of them were heading into sitcoms while Guttenberg pretty much disappeared altogether. I wonder if the French original is any better...Oh and merry Christmas everyone!

itsdashiznit88 The "rumor" that the boy in the background of one of the scenes in the movie is a cardboard cutout is indeed false. I have carefully studied the scene in question and it resembles no Ted Danson and if watched very carefully the "cutout's" eyes follow Jack and his mother as they walk across the room. The so-called expose' pics of the boy are an inaccurate depiction. The scene never cuts away and the boy is better viewed when to the right of Jack and his mother, not the left as the pictures I've seen depict. Another excuse to the "gun" in the scene is that it is the side view of the cutout. This also is explainable. If you examine closely you will see that when to the right of Jack and his mother the gun and the boy are both at their frontal views. The gun and the boy never coexist within the scene. These public skeptic's explanations are simply to blow off publicity that the mother of the child did not desire. She believe the film makers were making a mockery of her sons death so they agreed to make public announcements that the boy was a prank and a fake.