Three Men and a Cradle (1986)

Very disappointing...

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Blistering performances.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The 3 men's lives in this story have no real meaning or depth.They seem to be living the ideal care-free life from a man's point of view. The baby will reveal their emptiness,and fill their lives in a way they never dreamed possible. Hats off to Coline Serreau for this fine film. I saw it when it first came out and it has aged well. Upon viewing it now that I have become a father of six,I have to say it seems better then ever to me ! I now understand it on a very different level,one can easily say it is a critique of our modern western "bourgeois" societies that have become allergic to children, especially babies. And it does so without sacrificing it's excellent humour. Note: This is a french movie,in order to really savor it to the full you must ideally understand french culture, and see it in french. From this perspective this genuinely funny comedy is worth a solid 10.

Cultural Awareness.The distinction between the roles that men and women play in this community conforms to many stereotypes, yet interestingly enough, captures the very essence of what can be learned when gender plays against those types. As the assuming standard goes, women, for the most part, are seen in many cultures as the nurturing figures of children; whereas men, to the contrary, are more or less the bread-winners of successful businesses. The women in this film conform to the stereotype of being overly sap-happy in regards to their interactions with children. For men, however, nurturing is not a fundamental component of their nature. Men, according to the stereotype, are rugged, adventurous, fearless and egocentric. Despite the traditional stereotype of men, this film expresses how those roles reverse. It gives new meaning to how men would instinctively respond when placed in positions of considerable moral obligation and sensitivity.As depicted in the film, three fun-loving yet humorously untrained bachelors are placed under a challenging position when an unknown baby girl swaddled in a cradle arrives unexpectedly at their door. The anxiety they express both through verbal remarks and fidgeting body language convey their conformance to the typical male response. In short, they are displayed as buffoons. They are not in touch with their child-like intuition and seem completely untrained for such a surprise. It's ironic though: on the one hand, they feel inadequate and unsure how to react; yet at the same time, their sense of moral obligation kicks in and they feel compelled to act responsibly. However, they refuse to surrender this new information to anyone (especially women). It's as if a breach in this information would be too challenging for their egos (something none of them are willing to sacrifice—at least in the beginning of the film). As they begin to perform the obligatory duties of caring for the child, their love grows immensely for her and they seem to replace the traditional role of women as caretakers.Character Arc.I would like to amalgamate the three men in this film as the main character due to their similar dysfunctions and level of competence. In the beginning of the film, they all share an unsettling sense of clumsiness and naivety in regards to their reaction to the child at their doorstep. None of them know properly how to hold a child, change diapers, buy appropriate milk formula, and put the child to sleep effectively. However, as they rise to fulfill their moral duties in taking care of the child's needs, they discover that they do possess something far beyond any talent could afford. They possess the attribute of love. This love propels them to begin making sacrifices for the child beyond their own selfish desires. One of the men cancels a special date he had planned with his girlfriend; another postpones his cartoon drawings for his business. All of these small yet profound sacrifices demonstrate the men's love they have for the child. Even though they never seem very happy when caring for its needs (this due to the strenuous task it is to raise children effectively), the rewards of knowing how much they love the child is shown when their house gets broken into by drug addicts. The house is left in ruins, yet the only concern on their minds is to secure the safety of the child. This shows their extreme dedication to human life beyond what any material possession could afford them. Through practice, patience and time, the men learn how to cope with the situation at hand. At the end of the film when the real mother comes back to claim the child, all three men go through withdrawals (a symbol of their attachment). The withdrawals are all natural results of seeing how much time, energy and love they placed into raising the child. The maxim is fulfilled in their hearts, "Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation." They have changed in the end, becoming more refined and sensitive. They have gained a new perspective through the things in which they suffered in knowing not only what love is, but also realizing their inner-strength of knowing how much weight is possible for them to bear.

First, this movie is a beautiful example why there's am more European kind of humour and a more American kind of it. I once read an American critic who honestly complained that all the funny things happening in this movie were so previsible. Wow, he even must have thought that was smart to realize. In fact, that's what this movie is all about: You know what's going to happen and you enjoy to see HOW it will happen. That's why this movie was remade in the US with Tom Selleck and stripped of all it's original charme, only to be found "better" by some people. Second, this movie is kind of a test whether you should become a dad/mum in your life - or better leave that to others. It worked with me ..two kids... If you vote this movie "9" or above, you should get kids. Below "5" ? Think again! ;-)

I saw the American version of this movie a long time ago, but as I remember it, I prefer this original French version.The acting is good, especially Roland Giraud. The first half of the movie is simply hilarious. It's even better when you know french, because some of the fun always get lost during translation.Still good today.Out of 100, I gave it 77. That's **½ on a **** stars rating system.Seen at home in Welland. June 23th, 2001. Marko Roy.