Three Men and a Baby...
It has been a long time since I watched Three Men and a Baby (1987), and its sequel, Three Men and a Little Lady (1990), and I was honestly expecting not to like either film. Too often when rewatching films that were on repeat during my childhood, I find that I am disappointed and bored by the films, or, at the very least, find something about them that makes them off-putting and unwatchable. That was not really the case with either of these films, although I have a definite favorite.
From the moment Three Men and a Baby started, I was mesmerized. It felt as if I’d stumbled across a time machine that transported me back to the eighties, and made me forget all the current troubles in the world, if just for a few hours. The opening montage immediately put a smile on my face, as the first few notes of “Bad Boy,” by The Miami Sound Machine, played (in fact the entire upbeat soundtrack was such a welcome break from the overly stylized instrumental film scores that dominate movies today, including the theme song, “The Minute I Saw You,” which was written by Marvin Hamlisch, David Foster, et. al. and performed by John Parr). Within those first few minutes, we learn so much about our leads, as we see Michael (Steve Guttenberg) working on painting a mural on the vestibule walls, and the reluctance of Peter (Tom Selleck) and Jack (Ted Danson) to stand still long enough for their caricatures to be completed. This montage serves as an excellent way to establish the womanizing bachelorhood of our three leads that is so easily toppled when a certain young female enters their lives…
I love the chaos that one small bundle of joy brings in this film. From an unassuming ‘package,’ peacefully sleeping in its pink bassinet having been deposited on the doorsteps of an apartment, to the crying mini monster with a seemingly never-ending lung capacity that absolutely unhinges three grown men, the comedic timing in Three Men and a Baby is perfection. What I didn’t remember was the dramatic shift in tone during the drug dealer scenes, and when Sylvia (Nancy Travis) returns for Mary (portrayed by twins Lisa and Michelle Blair). Somehow these scenes worked, even if the pacing and tone felt a little choppy or abrupt at times.
The scenes that I enjoyed the most were the hilarious ones in which Michael and Peter attempt to care for Mary, and their subsequent revenge on Jack, via refusing to help him, is equally as funny. Even having seen this movie many times before, I found that the comedy still held up, as I chuckled at all the little moments and quick asides sprinkled throughout the movie. The exchange between Peter and Edna, the clerk at the store, when Peter is trying to select the right formula to buy and where he repeatedly takes items off the shelves and then just as quickly puts them back, left me in stitches. As did the early scene where Michael tries to ‘entertain’ baby Mary, and when Jack dresses up as a pregnant woman to avoid being spotted by the police. Three Men and a Baby lived up to my memory of the film, and if anything, got better (and funnier) with age.
I have to admit, although I did enjoy watching both movies back-to-back, I do prefer Three Men and a Baby over Three Men and a Little Lady for a few key reasons. For one thing, the story within the sequel feels incomplete. At the point that we end Three Men and a Little Lady, we have injected the narrative with a dose of ‘normalcy’ by solidifying the relationship between Peter and Sylvia, through marriage, but that doesn’t really rectify this dysfunctionally functional family’s living situation or the fact that Mary has a tough road ahead at school due to being raised by three ‘fathers…’ In a sense, the sequel feels at odds with the free-spiritedness of Three Men and a Baby, as depicted via the non-monogamous relationship between Peter and Rebecca (Margaret Colin), and the choice that all four adults (Peter, Michael, Jack, and Sylvia) make in deciding to cohabitate and raise baby Mary together. Where Three Men and a Baby feels a little edgier and forward-thinking, I find that Three Men and a Little Lady tries to undo all of the unconventional qualities of the character’s interpersonal relationships and make this family conform to a more ‘normal’ dynamic (think: ye old nuclear family). I also found the romantic comedy tropes to be a bit over-the-top, as they shifted the focus of the comedy away from raising a child, to that of an old-school screwball romantic comedy in an attempt to unite Peter and Sylvia.
Ultimately, I prefer the messiness of Three Men and a Baby to the sanitized storyline of Three Men and a Little Lady, but found that both films were an enjoyable nostalgia trip in their own way. From the soundtrack to the superb ensemble cast, the delightful comedic timing, and the typically 1980s clothing and background choices, our January Double Feature was a much-needed blast from the past, and while I probably won’t be re-watching the sequel to Three Men and a Baby anytime soon, both movies have a permanent place in my DVD collection. – Sarah 👱👦👨🍼👶
My name is Bailey, and I love Full House. I'm not ashamed about it. Having been born in 1991, I entered this world at the height of the family sitcom's popularity, and, as I have watched it since babyhood, the Tanners became a second family to me. The show is as comforting to me as the womb. What does my love of this TGIF staple have to do with this month's Film Club selection? Only the fact that Full House creator Jeff Franklin fully admits that the series shamelessly rode on the coattails of Three Men and a Baby's popularity. Given the evidence, I should probably love the film and its sequel. Do I? Let's find out together.
Three Men and a Baby, or: ‘Two Men and a Baby and then One Man and a Baby and then Three Men and a Woman and a Baby,’leaves me with a couple of foundational questions. How do these men know each other? Why do they choose to live with each other despite their presumed successful careers (give or take a TV movie actor)? Why is their apartment so labyrinthian? Was it Peter's final project in Arthouse Architecture 101? Exactly zero of these questions will be answered in the movie.
Let's meet the titular "three men." There's the "boyishly handsome" (Really? Words mean things.) architect Peter (Tom Selleck, with his "boyish" mustache and "boyish" dad jeans. He's such a baby.), the insufferable cartoonist Michael (Steve Guttenberg, who defies the rules of Hollywood by attaining fame despite his lack of talent, charm, and overall attractiveness), and the absentee father-turned absentee cast member, Jack (Ted Danson, presumably filming Cheers during the second act of the movie? Maybe let's rethink the title, fellas). As my alternative title might suggest, Jack is markedly absent for a significant portion of the film as he films a TV movie in Turkey. This leaves Peter and Michael to be the ones who find the baby and struggle through all of those classic fish-out-of-water moments that only toxic gender norms can provide. Then, once Jack has returned, we get to start from square one with him alone. At first glance, the absence of Jack might be a bit annoying, but honestly, if it had been Steve Guttenberg missing for half of the movie I would have been nothing but grateful. Alas, he's here in an overabundance.
Let's talk "funny." It's a very subjective thing, funny is. Some people love this film's type of baby humor. I find it… disgusting. The poop, the pee, the food on the face, the gratuitous baby butt shots? Not for me. For some people, maybe, but not for me. My main takeaway from the movie is not to appreciate those who care for children, but rather that babies are guh-ross and we just trick ourselves into loving them as a coping mechanism from the trauma of being peed on. Maybe I'm the wrong one. Maybe all of this is super cute and hilarious. No. I don't think I'm wrong. In any event, this film is two parts baby humor, one part clumsily forced crime comedy. The entire drug deal subplot seemed less than pointless, and provided very few laughs. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but during the climax of the film in the construction site, I actually found myself missing the nasty baby humor.
Okay, I'm ready to talk about what I loved about this movie: all of the women refusing to take care of this child. I love the men taking the child to the respective women in their lives with the expectation that their natural motherly urges will kick in to save the day, and they all respond with essentially, "Nah, I'm cool." I love it. I especially love Peter's girlfriend, who calls him out for thinking that just because she's a woman she knows how to care for a baby, and then tells him that not only does she not know what to do, she just doesn't want to do it. AND THEN SHE LEAVES. YES! I realize this is all just a mechanism so that these men will be completely up the creek without a paddle, but I still really appreciate that it's not that these women are unavailable. They are choosing to make the men take care of the child.
I will admit I got a smidgeon of Lord of the Rings confusion with the endings. I fully expected the film to end after the construction site showdown, especially considering the feel-good montage of the men in the park with the baby. I couldn't believe it when the film continued and I realized there were still 20 minutes left in the movie! I couldn't imagine what else could happen, which was only the most obvious and logical next step: the mother returning to take the much-adored child from these three men. This is naturally what any film toting these tropes would do, but it just felt so unnecessary. Of course, this superfluous 20 minutes becomes essential to the film's sequel. Speaking of which...
Three Men and a Little Lady is certainly less gross than its predecessor (though there is still a baby butt, pee humor, and nightmare-inducing makeup effects on Ted Danson). Honestly, I think I prefer this sequel to the original film. Not only is there significantly less baby, but there are also some genuinely hilarious English jabs in the second half of the movie. That sheep scene was the height of hilarity. I also love that they continue subverting female expectations in the household by making Mary's mother, Sylvia (Nancy Travis) a terrible cook. Speaking of Sylvia, the addition of her to the household in the second movie was both enjoyable and a bit confusing. A lot happens in five years, but I couldn't help but feel thrown into a situation with very little context, which is an interesting feat to accomplish in a film sequel. Was she in a relationship with Jack? Where did the chemistry between her and Peter come from? What happened to Peter's girlfriend from the first movie? Why is Michael still living there when he's miserable and lacking privacy in his relationship? It took me a little too long to get my bearings, and I remained left with questions even after the film had finished.
While the first half of the movie is about as entertaining as the first film, once they enter England I found myself having a much more enjoyable experience. The film almost entirely abandons the implied premise of three men raising a little girl, instead focusing on a different fish-out-of-water scenario: three dopes in England. From the moment we find Peter and Michael crammed into that Mini Cooper, I was hooked. I was disappointed to see that they managed to keep Ted Danson out of the middle of the story again, but he makes up for it with his hilarious turn disguised as the vicar. Again, the makeup is nothing short of horrifying, but I love Danson's commitment to the scene. Additionally, I love the supporting characters the sequel introduces, my favorite by far being Barrow (John Boswall), the affable, senile butler. Other heavy hitters in the cast include Fiona Shaw as Miss Lomax, the lusty boarding school headmistress, and Jonathan Lynn as the flustered (real) vicar. Even Edward (Christopher Cazenove) makes a pretty good, albeit painfully transparent, villain for the men to overcome. I was just relieved we didn't have to endure another shootout.
In conclusion, I was surprised to find that I could take or leave the Three Men series. I forgot to mention in the offset that I have seen the first film before, several years ago, and not a blessed moment of it stuck with me. It was like it was watching it anew. And honestly, I can see myself forgetting it all over again over the next few years. While I enjoyed both films well enough in the moment, I'm not likely to return to either one very often and am far more likely to rewatch the sequel over the original film. But, honestly, I'm just going to keep rewatching Full House to fill any "team of dads" void in my life. I'd take Dave Coulier, and almost anyone else, over Steve Guttenberg any day of the week. – Bailey 💩
What did you think of Three Men and a Baby and Three Men and a Little Lady? Which movie is your favorite? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and check back soon for the announcement of our February Film Club selection!
Copyright © 2021 Sarah Crane & Bailey Lizotte
