It's all in the title and it was enough to lure French views into the certitude of a heart-warming 'coming-to-realization' story and contribute to one of the hugest national box-office successes. Did the film stand the test of time for all that? In my opinion, Coline Serreau took a wonderful comedic premise for granted and indulged to some embarrassingly predictable situations.First, the men's so-called evolution that should be the reason-to-be of the story is non-existent, storytelling-wise. The film is a series of situations happening less because it's real, but because it's required by Serreau's script. I know "3 Men and a Cradle" belongs to the "Classics of French Comedy" category and features a great ensemble cast, even the little girl steals the show, but overall, the film has the appeal of a charming sitcom episode with the same level of superficiality.First, the film insists so much about our three men being hardcore bachelors and successful womanizers that we already expect the baby to change their attitudes toward women for the better. Although little Marie doesn't speak quite exactly in favor of the mother who abandoned, no matter how 'struggling' she was. Anyway, as soon as she makes her entrance, it's a revolution in diapers knocking on the doors, and we expect an avalanche of laughs never deprived from a tender side.We get them, but how heavily caricatured they are! The look on Pierre's face (Roland Giraud) when the pharmacist educates him about milk and diapers is naturally supposed to highlight the fact that he's in a totally unfamiliar territory. Michel (Boujenah) getting hysterical because the baby cries is supposed to create the 'HA HA' effect. Then they naturally vent their anger on each other "don't talk to me with that tone" etc. etc. It's noisy, whiny, hence funny.Before Jacques' come-back, (he's the steward played by André Dussolier) the film digs into heroin subplot, I guess heroin was more 'relevant' than 'hashish' for the story. And we're supposed to accept that the reasonable Pierre, and the sensitive Michel, would give the cradle to two punks, believed that was the pack Jacques told them about. "Yeah, men can be stupid." believes Coline Serreau. Then, the Narcs come, Michel hides the heroin, knowing the cops would be stupid enough not to checks in the diapers.Then Jacques comes back, and instead of speaking, Pierre and Michel remain mysteriously silent, and it's only after three desperately long minutes that they finally tell him. I hated that scene because it was too staged, too 'marketed' at the expenses of believability. That was the kind of gag a sitcom could have afforded, not that kind of realistic comedy. When Jacques was getting hysterical, the only thing that was missing to complete the picture was a laugh track.Then, they organize themselves and the film works reasonably before getting back to hackneyed situations. When one of Jacques' one-night hits realizes there's a baby in the house, she didn't get her fun then she leaves. Since Serreau believes that men don't care for babies, it's only fair that she'd believe not every woman would look at one, or at least, ask how come there's one in three bachelor's house. After all, even the mother left the baby without the decency to ring the bell, or wait for the door to be opened.Naturally, all the bachelors invited to a party don't care for Marie, not even one of the female guests, and someone says exactly the things that will trigger a defensive reaction from Pierre (who, in fact, thought like him). Unsurprisingly, Pierre shouts, the guest leave, we get it, Marie conquered the three guy's hearts. But then again, the mother comes back, they're happy to give Marie's back, all is forgotten; they all party and make up in the bedroom for the lost time (even Michel).And guess what happens next, they miss the girl, and don't care anymore for the rest. Everything in this film can be seen coming from a mile. Take the moment where Pierre finds out that Jacques left with Marie, he's obviously upset, but keeps in denial. We know he misses the girl, so why such a poor comical device by making him pretend that he doesn't care? When it can go for truly heart-warming moments, the screenplay opts for cheap laughs.I still liked the ending, having Marie coming back, and the three men genuinely happy like little children, what a cute sight!. But that cuteness hides a more 'paternalistic' attitude toward men, from the perspective of Coline Serrau, who exploit the same one-dimensionality following the plot's requirements. either, they're the bachelor-who-don't-care or the three-little-daddies, but the evolution process is never clear.It's all in situations, when they don't shout at each other because of the baby, they shot at other people (friends, the nurse ...) because of the baby. "3 Men and a Craddle" is probably one of the noisiest comedies ever, and not because of the cries. And in the middle of this cacophony, the film provides some tender and poignant scenes, but it's precisely because they're good that we hardly believe the rest.How could Michel who loved little Marie even more than her father, be so jovial immediately after she left? Why should they go through the same stages in the same time? Michel could have been sad from the beginning. The three actors do a fine job showing that every man can finds a good spot in his heart to fill it with love. That's the film's premise, it is good, the ending is predictable but good too, yet in-between, some situations don't seem to think much of our intelligence.There were so many great French comedies in the 80's, but, I wonder why this one should receive the 'masterpiece' badge. I can believe the American remake is not as good, but I'm looking forward to watch John Ford's "3 Godfathers".

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! ;-)

Shortly after its initial release this became - in terms of viewing figures - the most popular French film after Le Grande Vadrouille and it's not too difficult to see why. There's something for everyone to write his or her 2,500 words about in this story of three male chauvinists getting in touch with not so much their feminist side as their maternal instincts and, for good measure, a sub-plot involving drugs which disappears without trace halfway through. Serreau is clearly interested in exploring role reversal and turning the traditional role-playing tables so that by the end of the film the three male chauvinists have learned not only to care about and/or love baby Marie but are light years ahead of the natural mother in terms of how to care for her in a literal sense. The three principals, Roland Giraud (Pierre), Michel Boujenah (Michel) and Andre Dussollier (Jacques, the natural father of Marie) were all relatively unknown at the time - Dussollier was almost unrecognizable to boot - and though all three have worked steadily since only Dussollier has achieved recognition outside France, and this probably worked in the film's favour just as conversely the higher profile of the Hollywood actors in the inevitable remake worked against what was a lousy film anyway. As usual the best of the dialogue loses in translation but sufficient original flavour survives to make this a highly enjoyable romp.