DVD Movie Guide @ dvdmg.com Kids & Family at Amazon.com.
Review Archive:  # | A-C | D-F | G-I | J-L | M-O | P-R | S-U | V-Z | Viewer Ratings | Main

Leonard Nimoy
Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, Ted Danson
Jim Cruickshank, James Orr, based on the play by Coline Serreau

They changed her diapers. She changed their lives.
Rated PG.

Widescreen 1.85:1/16x9
English Dolby Digital 5.1
English, Spanish, French

Runtime: 102 min.
Price: $19.99
Release Date: 4/2/2002

• None.


Search Products:

Sony 36" WEGA KV-36FS12 Monitor; Sony DA333ES Processor/Receiver; Panasonic CV-50 DVD Player using component outputs; Michael Green Revolution Cinema 6i Speakers (all five); Sony SA-WM40 Subwoofer.


[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Three Men and a Baby (1987)

Reviewed by Colin Jacobson

With big-budget competition from flicks like Beverly Hills Cop II and Predator, who’d have thunk that 1987’s top hit would come from a light comedy remake of a French flick? However, that’s exactly what happened. 1987 was a bit of a weak year at the box office, as were 1986 and 1988; those were the only three years of the Eighties during which the top-grossing movie didn’t pass the $200 million mark. (That happened only once in the Nineties, with 1995’s Toy Story.)

During that three-year dry spell, 1987 provided the lowest-grossing winner. Although Three Men and a Baby’s $167 million take didn’t set any records, it still was good enough to top the charts for that year. Actually, 1987 offered a number of surprises high on its list; unheralded releases Fatal Attraction and Good Morning Vietnam were also among its biggest successes.

But the flick about three hunks and an infant directed by a man most famous for his pointy ears won. On one hand, I’d like to cheer for the underdog and applaud crowds for their willingness to go for such a modest film, but this ignores one important factor: Baby bites. Newborns enjoyed a nice run at the box office in this era, what with the success of 1989’s Look Who’s Talking. Geez, that one might be worse than Three Men!

Whatever the case, I’m happy that the infant trend died fairly quickly. Talking spawned two sequels, neither of which did well; 1990’s Look Who’s Talking Too earned roughly a third of the original’s $140 million gross, and by 1993’s Look Who’s Talking Now, the receipts fell all the way down to a pathetic $10 million!

Three Men mustered only one sequel, thankfully: 1990’s Three Men and a Little Lady. Although it made almost $100 million less than the first movie, its $71 million gross actually wasn’t bad. Ironically, though I’m sure the suits regarded the earnings as a disappointment, I’d bet that if the original had taken in $71, they would have seen it as a hit! $71 in 1990 for that kind of flick really was pretty decent.

Had Lady made more money, would we have received more sequels? I have no idea, but I’m sure happy this didn’t occur. Frankly, one movie from this series was too much, as Three Men and a Baby offered a consistently moronic and sappy piece of work.

Three Men is what they call a “high concept” flick. At the start we meet three handsome and popular yuppie bachelors, all of whom live together at a swingin’ Manhattan pad. We find Jack the actor (Ted Danson), Peter the architect (Tom Selleck), and Michael the cartoonist (Steve Guttenberg). All’s well in their world until Jack goes to Turkey to shoot a film. A commercial director friend of his asked if he’d look after a package, so he lets his roomies know to expect something. This arrives while he’s away, and apparently it turns out to be a baby girl!

This sends the men into a tizzy, but they sweat it out; someone’s supposed to pick up the “package” in a couple of days, so they take a crash course in baby care. Eventually when some thugs do arrive, a comedy of errors results; they’re actually after some disguised heroin and they take baby Mary because they think she’s a cover for the transaction.

Peter and Michael quickly figure out what happened when they remember that another package came, and it includes the dope. From there a subplot takes charge through which they have to deal with the criminals while they also try to keep Mary - and themselves - safe. Things expand somewhat when Jack returns, but basically the flick follows those lines.

At least until the end of the second act. The drug subplot finishes at that time, but another complication emerges when Mary’s mother Sylvia (Nancy Travis) comes for the baby. (Jack worked with her in a production of The Taming of the Shrew; their one-night stand resulted in Mary.) The boys have grown to love the little cutie and issues arise about how to deal with this situation.

The “plot” to Three Men is so slight that it barely exists. Essentially the movie exists as an excuse to run a series of scatological jokes and to set up a myriad of cutesy montages. It’s just soooo adorable to watch these hunks struggle with a baby, isn’t it? Uh, no, it’s not. It’s really fairly pathetic, as the movie never attempts to offer anything more than the most obvious gags and situations.

I guess the drug elements came about because the filmmakers realized how insubstantial the story was and they wanted to attempt something more substantial. Unfortunately, that side of the movie misfires badly as well, mainly because the story feels so insanely gratuitous. Plot or no, Three Men would have succeeded better if it stayed solely with the main “fish out of water” theme. Anybody who went to see it did so for the cutesy elements; they didn’t care about the threat offered by the crooks.

Still, I suppose the movie would have been too short without that extension, so pointless as it may be, those scenes do serve a purpose. I think the fact that plot resolves by the end of the second act shows how useless it was; had it been a more important area, it’d last closer to the end.

Three Men stands as one of the most dated films I’ve ever seen. I watched Ruthless People shortly before I screened Three Men. While People certainly features its era-specific elements, it looks fresh as a daisy compared to the relentlessly Eighties Three Men. From the poofy hairstyles to the ugly clothes to the synth-based score and songs, the movie has not aged well.

Actually, the film’s tunes offered a strong indication that it’d be bad. Any flick that features two Miami Sound Machine songs in the first seven minutes must suck. The movie’s soundtrack suffered from an incredible run of crummy songs, actually. From Peter Cetera to John Parr, we hear from lousy Eighties singers; there’s not a decent performer in the bunch.

Three Men and a Baby is comedy for the Anne Geddes crowd. If you can’t get enough of cute babies and adorable situations, you’ll eat this sucker up with a spoon. However, if you’d like to see a movie with a real plot, interesting characters, and clever humor, stay far away from this mega-dud.

The DVD Grades: Picture C / Audio C / Bonus F

Three Men and a Baby appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 1.85:1 on this single-sided, single-layered DVD; the image has been enhanced for 16X9 televisions. Overall, the picture had some good moments, but it displayed a number of problems that made it less than terrific.

Sharpness appeared reasonably good for the most part. Usually the film remained acceptably crisp and well defined. Only a few sequences showed minor softness. Jagged edges and moiré effects created no concerns, and I also saw no signs of edge enhancement.

Colors displayed the muddiness typical of many Eighties flicks. Overall, the hues came across as somewhat heavy and murky. They were never truly bad, but they could appear pretty lifeless. Black levels seemed reasonably deep and dense, while shadow detail was also decent but unexceptional. Interiors appeared somewhat flat and bland, but they worked acceptably well.

As was the case with Ruthless People, Three Men lost most of its points due to print flaws. Grain provided many distractions, as the movie showed fairly heavy levels much of the time. In addition, I also saw intermittent examples of specks, streaks, scratches and grit. However, grain really caused the biggest problems. In the end, Three Men and a Baby occasionally looked good, but I couldn’t give it a grade any higher than a “C”.

The Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack of Three Men and a Baby also seemed rather mediocre. Not surprisingly, the film provided a mix that remained fairly heavily anchored in the front speakers. In that realm, it showed reasonable stereo spread for the music, and the effects also provided a pretty decent sense of ambience. A few active elements emerged, such as vehicles that panned from one side to the other, but mostly the track stayed with general environmental audio. Occasionally speech showed some bleeding to the side speakers; dialogue occasionally seemed less well centered than I’d expect. As for the surrounds, they kicked in with nothing more than vague reinforcement of the front spectrum. The rear speakers added virtually nothing to the package.

Audio quality appeared bland. Dialogue was distinct and intelligible but without much life; the lines lacked edginess but they seemed a bit stiff. Effects were also clean and accurate but they featured little dynamic range and sounded somewhat thin. Music showed similar concerns. Actually, the score showed fairly positive clarity but demonstrated little depth. The songs came across as problematic on both sides. They offered flat highs and insubstantial bass. Ultimately, the soundtrack seemed blah but acceptable for its era.

As part of Buena Vista’s “budget” line, Three Men and a Baby comes without any supplements. That’s right - it doesn’t even include a trailer or any other minor pieces.

It also fails to deliver any humor, spark or cleverness. Three Men and a Baby provides a flaccid experience that never remotely appears funny, involving or even tolerable. The DVD offers fairly weak picture and sound along with absolutely no extras. Unless you’re dying to watch 102 minutes of saccharine cuteness, skip this clunker.

Viewer Film Ratings: 4.5538 Stars Number of Votes: 65
4 3:
View Averages for all rated titles.