Please don't spend money on this.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Peter Mitchell (Tom Selleck), Jack Holden (Ted Danson), and Michael Kellam (Steve Guttenberg) are three carefree bachelors, living out their lives as room mates in a trendy New York apartment.They shoot pool, drink, party, date as many girls as they want, and live the life most men can only dream of.But that all changes one sunny morning, when a baby named Mary is dropped on their doorstep, with a note from her mother addressed to Jack (he's the father), saying she can no longer take care of the infant, and he will have to do that from now on.It just so happens that Jack is out of town shooting a movie, and it's up to Peter and Michael to take care of the frightened baby...which they have no clue how to do.And to make things worse, Jack has gotten himself involved with a drug dealer thanks to his less than honest agent, and a package of heroine is delivered to the apartment, which ultimately puts everybody (including Mary) in danger.Ironically, it is this disaster which ultimately warms the the bachelors hearts towards the child, in spite of how anxious they are to get back to their normal routine.But when her mother, Sylvia Bennington (Nancy Travis) decides she can't live without her daughter, and is going to raise her after all, the three men realize they can't go back to their former lives.Endearing, and very funny, this movie is refreshing in the wholesome values it embraces.One feels better about the world after watching it.Originally, Review #152Posted On: December 16, 2011

"Three men and a baby" is very much a product of its time. The power dressing,the "cool" wall painting in the boys' apartment,the outdated attitudes towards women,the presumption that men will have no idea of how to look after children - a proposition completely demolished within a few years with the growth of the Househusband and the fragmentation of family life in much of the Western world. And,frankly,if I never see another baby peeing I will still get through my life ok,thanks. We have three ridiculously attractive bachelors living what might have been called in more innocent days "the gay life". All this fun and games is brought to a standstill when the eponymous baby turns up on their doorstep. Of course they are all "Creatives" which makes it even more unlikely that they should have been left on the shelf - as it were - for so long. One of theses carefree chaps is the unknowing father of the baby,but being good types they all chip in when they can and actually begin to enjoy the experience. Bless! Every new baby cliché is dusted off and given new life. There is a sublimely unlikely twist when they become involved with a gang of drug dealers(very much a hazard of American life in the eighties,apparently) but otherwise the film rides smoothly on it's pre - ordained path. It's all so last century - and not in a good way. Tom Selleck has gone on to become a significant actor,his moustache unchanging through 30 years. If you want to catch up on his earlier career watch "High Road to China",far better than this in every respect.

In the late 80's this was the family comedy by excellence. I mean, it aired regularly on many channels and to be honest, it's a funny but naive movie that had a premise that was very popular at the time; making a baby or infant being the center of the plot.Tom Selleck is great as always and delivers a fine comedic performance. The situations are funny mainly because it demonstrates how a bunch of macho men are able to take care of a baby. Well, that's all you have to know about the plot.The dark urban myth is well known by everybody and I won't get into details about it, or I won't even discuss if it's real or a hoax. The truth is that the "moment" is creepy as hell and makes this family movie a creepy experience for a moment.

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.