Recensioni degli utenti

I don't know why this one was so trashed by the critics. It's not a masterpiece but hardly as bad as indicated by the drubbing it got. It has what I thought what the best movie scene of its year, where Tom Selleck is talking to the little girl about his departure. He talks to her so intelligently, just the way a smart person would talk to a smart child. After that, I was willing to forgive an awful lot (and admittedly, there's an awful lot to forgive

I thought this was cute and not bad at all. Filled with charm, innocence, drama and romance. I thought it was a nice mix. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them. It is an emotionally uplifting movie that will raise your morale. Unfairly dismissed by some as confusing, this kind of sentimental character piece needs a tight focus so all of the nuances of the characters shine through. Oh, and the colors are amazing and seem to follow the mood of the story.

Geez, it looks like someone's really easily impressed. While given that this movie certainly deserves a higher rating than 4.5 (probably about a 6) it is certainly nowhere near being the best film ever.

Danson, Selleck and Guttenberg are great together and the supporting cast is good too. There is one classic moment (because it is so accurate) of a farmer giving the three men directions on how to get to a church as he describes in painstaking detail the road that they should avoid taking. As with most comedies some of the jokes just don't work at all. This doesn't make it a poor comedy, this just stops it from being a above average one.

This film is a solid piece of feel good cinema with great casting (though not neccessarily a great cast) and I can only assume people rate films on a different scale to me.

I don't honestly understand why this film was panned so severely! It may not be a masterpiece as such but it certainly was worth the time of day.

And for the people that are getting so serious about the England v. America thing: I'm English too and happen to find the stereotypes displayed in this film hilarious. It isn't meant as a direct offence, but merely light hearted fun.

Also the "3 men" are fantastic again in their roles. Nancy Travis does a great job and has more chance in this film to show what she's got! Christopher Cazenove does a great job of being completely unlikeable and Fiona Shaw is AMAZING!

A great film and to anyone who hasen't watched it already - please do! You won't regret it.

Though no one would accuse this movie of being intellectually challenging, it is fun to watch and has some really funny scenes. The little girl who plays Mary was a great child actress -- I found her to be both adorable and convincing. The interactions between Sylvia, the three men, and the pompous English director she dates are amusing, if rather sitcom-ish.

The English stereotypes are nothing new, and I used to live in England, but I was still amused. Probably because they were done in such a goofy, light-hearted spirit. Fiona Shaw is hysterical, too, as the headmistress of a girl's school who develops an excruciating crush on Tom Selleck's character.

Definitely worth watching, and safe for little kids.

Mary is now 5. She and her mother Sylvia Bennington (Nancy Travis) have ingrained themselves into the lives of Peter Mitchell (Tom Selleck), Michael Kellam (Steve Guttenberg), and Jack Holden (Ted Danson). The five of them have become an unique family. Baby daddy Jack continues to be irresponsible while Peter is falling for Sylvia. Then she announces that she's marrying Edward Hargreave and moving to England.

The comedy is not that funny. It feels especially sitcomy. It isn't fresh anymore. There is a compelling romance rising out of the ashes. The guys remain likable. Sylvia has a central role this time around along with little girl Mary. It's a secondary sequel and not quite that good.

I haven't seen all of the first one but I thought the second one was great. It's filled with charm, innocence, drama, comedy, and romance and I thought it was a pretty nice mixture of them. 3 men and a little lady is about a little girl, Mary who is all grown up now and is still babysitted by three men. Once she discovers about going to England, it starts making her a little moved and isolated as well as her three most crucial companions but soon recalls her supernatural-ness to see her friends with closed eyes. I know that the first film seems a little like Baby Boom but both this and that were good films. I thought this one was cute and wasn't bad at all. Three men and a little lady is an emotionally uplifting movie that will raise your moral and spirited levels.

With the exception of The Godfather (which failed us the third time round) what sequels have EVER been any good? Very few if any. This is no exception. A watered down version of the first one, made to keep the franchise going I'd guess, this is just okay. Probably best seen with the first one, right after it. The English cliches are a bit thick, but all the performers are amiable. Why didn't they just make this into a television series?

And unnecessary sequel to a great 80s family movie. It was inevitable that following the success of a "Three Men And A Baby" that a sequel would follow. It was also inevitable that the sequel would be of inferior quality.

Plot In A Paragraph: The three men (Peter, Michael, and Jack) are back and are still living with Mary, who is now five, and her mother, Sylvia. The group is split up when Sylvia announces that she is marrying an Englishman and that they intend to move to England after the wedding, taking Mary with them.

The first movie had plenty of laughs and charm, this one is almost laugh free, and is vastly inferior.

Tom Selleck has a certain charm but he will always be a poor mans version of Burt Reynolds. Ted Danson plays Sam Malone (from Cheers) just with a different name, which is no bad thing as he brings the movies one funny line. When Peter (Selleck) is shooting down every potential husband for Sylvia, Jack snaps "Jesus Peter!! We're not asking you to marry him!!" And every time I see Steve Guttenberg I can't help but wonder what happened to him and his career.

While not ever likely to be one of those rare sequels that's better than the original this film is likable enough fun, with the three male leads from the first one all returning for more comedic fare, only this time the baby's a bit older, and they're in jolly old England.

It has it's moments, but in my opinion lacks a bit of the charm that made the original such a joy.

I would be interested to see a third in the series if it ever got made.

After all these years, still love this movie!

A wedding almost cancelled due to a hat .. brilliant.

Great family movie, easy to watch and enjoy.

Not enough of these easy going movies these days.

Every time I watch Harry Potter I think it this movie, great to see the flow though to Andor.

Sometimes it feels we have lost the magic of simple family fun movies, in favour of darker more deep dive cinema events. Sometimes it's nice to simply watch a movie that's not too taxing. The characters are easy to figure out and relate too, and no offence to anyone. We always need to watch a movie that's making a statement, just sit back relax and enjoy!

This is one of the rare instances when the sequel stands up or is better than the first film,most sequels are rehashed or pale in comparison to the original,this one will not disappoint!

This film and the original are two of my favourites and I think perhaps its time for a third entry in the series I'd love to see Guttenberg,Danson and Sellick back to see how the characters lives have progressed.It'd be great if done properly and let's face it the stars careers could probably do with a boost.

The storyline is pretty good and the humour is very good,I don't want to give too much away,so I won't just get the movie and the original and watch them both,make a night of it.

I am really quite loathed to say anything at all about this film. I actually felt rather sick and extremely nauseated by it. I can't actually decide if this film is an outrageously poor attempt at humour or weather it is simply a prolonged attack against the people of Britain. Many American films are guilty of portraying the British as upper class morons, but this film really tries hard to make us look like the most idiotic, brain dead, arrogant, stuck up, pompous creatures that infest this planet. I don't know if the makers expected the film to go down very well on this side of the Atlantic, but I for one found it more than disagreeable. Apart from the obvious stereotyping of British people, this film is truly dreadful. A very poor sequel to a very poor original. I really can't say any more about it because thinking about it is bringing my nausea back on.

Why does this film have such a low rating?. OK i know most sequels never live up to the original but this film was different it was much better than 3 men and a little baby. Better storyline that kept you interested mainly the fact that half of the film is set in South England which gave the film a different angle and made it more interesting. Now on to the actors definitely Ted Danson was the best actor as Jack Holden closely followed by Tom Selleck as Peter Mitchell. I have seen this film since i was 3 years old when it first came out and it remains as a classic comedy alongside Uncle Buck, Planes, Trains and Automobiles etc its classed alongside those kind of films i think and overall it gets a 7/10

Fiona Shaw plays Miss Lomax, an English teacher with a crush on Tom Selleck's character. Shaw makes the movie bearable and even quite funny at times. Otherwise, 3 Men and a Little Lady is silly and predictable.

I would refer this movie as a family movie, because in this movie, it is more romantic and more easy going. However 3 Man and a Little Lady couldn't be as funny compare to 3 man and a little baby. For the characters inside, I would especially recall that the little lady, Mary. She is a very very sophisticated young actress. She plays the roll in a very naturally without what we usually see from other young actors/actresses. For the adults, the three special man did great job too! Especially when it came to the part where they were putting Mary into sleep. Slyvia, act very well too. In overall, this movie is worth watching, especially for family humors.

For some reason for me three men and a little lady was better than the first movie. It was better better acting a little better story and I like the conclusion of it. It shows in how much the movie made that it didn't do so well at the box office but overall over the span of time this is the better movie of the two for me.

Take every stupid cliche Hollywood has ever produced to portray England and the English, throw in an irritating brat and 3 truly awful characterisations, and you've got this movie. Next to it, 3 Men and a Baby actually looks good. I watched the end of this film only to make sure it was as bad all the way through, and it sure was.

After being only mildly entertained by the first movie, I was absolutely awestruck by this sequel. There are many hilarious scenes, a love story triangle, outstanding scenery of the English countryside, and outstanding acting by the big "3 Men". I would have to rate this one of my Top Ten movies of all time.

This movie had no gaps or letdowns, and I could/can not stop watching it. I've easily seen it a dozen times or more, and just caught it again last week on Showtime.

Let me cite some of the extraordinary scenes in this flick. The Rap song by the Big 3 (amazing!), the Big 3's kitchen scene regarding the discussion of possible suitors for Sylvia, the bachelor's swinging NYC party scene (Selleck's blonde was a major fox!) Fiona Shaw's pursuit of Tom Selleck in the Pileforth Academy, and the ending's madcap frenzy!

What a movie!

Fairly unnecessary sequel that backseats Danson and Guttenberg for Selleck's story and loses some of the appeal in the process. It's not bad and I'd probably see it again, but as good as Robin Weisman is as the Little Lady, the heart-melting appeal of the first movie isn't quite there.

"3 Men and a Baby" was one of the highest-grossing films of the 1980s and made Steve Guttenberg a star (yech) yet again. He gave a remarkable performance in Barry Levinson's "Diner" - then he resorted to kiddie trash like these films.

If you liked the first, you'll probably like this. It's more of the same - three klutzes taking care of a baby (now a young girl) go through tough times trying to adjust. Here, they try to keep her mother away from marrying some bad evil guy. Woefully painful (and offensive) British stereotypes are made and the jokes are intolerable.

This is one of the best cases of a franchise cash-in - a surprising little gem is found (albeit a pretty poor one) by audiences, makes millions of dollars, and studio bosses who didn't want to make the original in the first place jump on the bandwagon and start investing money into a sequel - which flops and ruins the reputation of the first. (Also see "Ocean's Twelve," which is currently receiving negative reviews and turning off fans of the original. Yikes!)