Why so much hype?
Absolutely the worst movie.
Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.
The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
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
This was remake of the French film. But with three great actors the movie was destined to be a great and memorable movie
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.
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.