Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

studioAT This is one of those classic 80's films that are still beloved by millions today.It takes a while to get going, but one the bombshell is dropped the film starts to be quite funny, with all three of the male leads being given the chance to show off their natural comedic skills.It's not my favourite 80's comedy, but its likable enough.

gcd70 Accurately funny comedy about two swinging bachelors who are left stranded with a little baby girl which they are forced to look after.Leonard Nimoy's film (based on the French hit "Three Men and a Cradle") is spot on with its humour as it details the misadventures of the two men as they struggle to feed, wash and contain the noisy child. Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg and Ted Danson are a good team and the subplot fills in time quite nicely.When it starts to get sentimental, the film does weaken a little, however for the most part this is a comedy worth your while. Also starred Nancy Travis.Sunday, February 21, 1993 - T.V.

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.

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.