"Three Men and a Cradle" is a classic of French cinema but so are many films that didn't exactly stand the test of time.

Colline Serreau's story (Oscar-nominated for Best Foreign Language Film) had the most interesting premise with three hardcore bachelors, womanizers and roommates forced to take care of a baby, a discipline they obviously knew nothing about, and then growing into loving and caring surrogate fathers. However the treatment was poor, the acting mostly relied on shouting contests and predictably childish situations and there was a lousy subplot involving a package of drug, the least thing you need in a family-centered comedy. It is fair to concede that the film had a sweetness of its own and was never as enchanting and endearing as when the three men spoke gently and quietly with little baby Marie, singing her a lullaby or just feeling deeply sad when she left (temporarily) the house.

I never really cared about the remake and presumed it wouldn't be an improvement. How wrong I was! If anything the film proves that a premise isn't enough and the execution can make a difference. There's the same insistence on the bachelors' tumultuous womanizing lives in a well-packed expositional party, Peter (Tom Selleck) is a successful and no-nonsense architect, his way with women is mature and charismatic, there's the more amiable and goofy Michael, the cartoonist (Steve Guttenberg) and Jack (Ted Danson) is the absentee actor. The three friends never date or court the same women, they have their rules on that matter but once little Mary shows her cute little face, they quickly understand that only one member of the female persuasion will impact their lives.

Something changes indeed when the little cradle abandoned at their house is taken and it's never feel forced or over-the-top, there's no hysteria, no panic, both Selleck and Guttengerg find the perfect tone of bewilderment and pragmatism while trying to deal with a "little insect" who just did poo-poo. When Peter goes to the grocery story, he's got to deal with a series of questions from a nosy little clerk but his face isn't as exaggeratedly stunned as his French counterpart Jean Giraud who looked as if he had never heard about the existence of babies. Selleck delivers a true virtuoso performance because he maintains his cool and never overacts in so many situations where French comedy would have already made everyone scream.

In fact, even Guttenberg (and later Danson) are sweet and comprehensive and that's the right tune, and I suspect it had to do with the film being directed by a man, Leonard Nimoy of all the people. Let me explain this before I get burned for misogyny. Coline Serreau obviously wanted to give a satirical edge to her story and putting men in situations that are borderline ridicule but by doing so she created some distance with her characters, making them the objects rather than subjects of the farcical situations. In the remake, the funny situation especially one involving the diapers or the feeding timing feel real... and take it from someone who never gets right the side of the shorts-like diapers, is the smiling face supposed to be in the read side or the front??

Nimoy obviously like this trio and wanted to convey the idea that men can be as valuable and patient as mothers. There's no mean-spiritedness behind and once Danson appears and start to take care of her, some scenes are so genuinely authentic and touching that you never feel the actors are playing, you might even think it's the best role they'd ever play. Guttenberg is cute, Danson has a wonderful moment with his mother (Celeste Holm) but it's Selleck who almost broke my heart in the famous scene where he finally finds little Mary after a one-minute search across the house. Once he holds her in his arms, you know the actor isn't acting. It feels real.

Also notice that once she becomes part of the family, other visitors are more than happy of that prospect. In the French remake, a baby sitter was bullied out of the house, guests were thrown out because they didn't care about the baby. Margaret Colin plays a love interest who's genuinely touched by the way Peter behaves, especially when they sing in unison "Goodnight, Sweetheart". And once the mother (Sylvia Travis) comes back, there's no hostility whatsoever, although they could at least ask her why she did that. But that's not a film that embarrasses itself with plot conveniences, we earn our happy ending in a way that could have been a copout had the actors not warmed our hearts through some genuinely touching moments. To put it simply, the film is an improvement on the original, which is quite an achievement since the norm is the American remake being lesser.

I wish however they could write off that lousy heroin drug that was unnecessary (even in the first film) and wasted almost thirty minutes with a resolution that never lives up to the rest. That's the only flaw, one even recognized by the fans, but apart from that, the film captures the true caring nature of fathers, and the love a child can inspire, it's a heartwarming story full of tenderness and sweetness and Selleck is just perfect as the protective father. Directed in 1987, it reflects a time where a film, with no special effects, no genuine plot, no trick but just a great premise and a good heart, could become the highest grossing film of the year, it's not that difficult to make a good film, just be sincere in your approach. We owe Serreau the story but her approach was staged to the limit of fakery, the remake does justice to the story, and it does it so well it could have been a pilot for a successful TV sitcom.