Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

TheLittleSongbird Not one of Doris Day's or Gordon MacRae's best, individually or together. 'On Moonlight Bay' and 'By the Light of the Silvery Moon' (both among the best films for both stars) are better collaborations of theirs.There is however a lot to like about 'Tea for Two', regardless of whether all those involved have done better in their careers. 'Tea for Two' could have been better certainly. One is aware that it has been well established that musicals are not really seen for their stories (whether it matters or not is wholly dependent on how well everything else is executed), but this story is so-so fluff at best and ridiculously daft at worst, the story being one of the most preposterous for any film musical made around this time.Some of 'Tea for Two' feels under-directed, though not as much as the still enjoyable 'Lullaby of Broadway' (with the same director involved), more in the non-song and dance numbers than in the musical scenes themselves. This is particularly in the SZ Sakall book-ending sequences, despite Sakall's best efforts those sequences seemed under-rehearsed and added very little. Virginia Gibson's character was underwritten and in a way incomplete, there was a sense that the film wanted to do more with her but couldn't.On the other hand, 'Tea for Two' looks great. Technicolor nearly always works wonderfully on film and particularly used to full advantage in musicals. It is a very lavishly produced film with a truly enchanting atmosphere. While not among the most memorable song scores, the songs are still incredibly pleasant and often very beautiful and puts one in a good mood, suiting the voices of Day and MacRae wonderfully. The title song, "I Only Have Eyes For You", "I Want to be Happy", "I Know that You Know" and Oh Me! Oh My!" are particularly good.They are aided by some great choreography as well. The big standout is Gene Nelson's jaw-dropping banister sequence, which has to be seen to be believed. The script is witty and full of warm-hearted charm, a lot of the best lines coming from Eve Arden.Day is luminous, looks very natural on screen and sings sublimely as always. MacRae would go on to better things but is charming, has a robust but beautiful baritone voice and his chemistry with Day is irresistible. Nelson once again proves himself to be quite the extraordinary dancer. Sakall plays the same character he usually does, but does it well so that doesn't matter so much, while Arden steals scenes with her terrific comic timing and witty lines. Even Billy DeWolfe, a take it or leave it performer whose shtick too often elsewhere doesn't hold up particularly well, is tolerable.In conclusion, not perfect but a tea-licious tea-light (pardon the very cheesy pun, really struggled to come up with a review summary) that pours well. 7/10 Bethany Cox

dougdoepke Utterly delightful musical of the kind sadly missing today. But how could it miss what with the following: lilting songs by MacRae, flying feet by Nelson, and a sunny sparkle by you know who. Then there's amusement from: a fractured Cuddles Szakall, acid asides by Arden, and clowning around by Billy DeWolfe. Plus, a Technicolor package seamlessly put together by director Butler. Overall, the hundred minutes is a real treat for the eyes, especially for the guys what with all the scantily clad chorus girls. And catch Arden's many innuendos that must have slipped past the censors. And oh yes, there is a story line set during the stock market crash of '29. Naturally, it was a time that made putting on a big Broadway show doubly difficult; then too add a dollop of "No, No, Nanette" for plot-wise amusement. But not to worry, Warner Bros. screenwriters will manage to work things out. Even so, who watches a musical for storyline. All in all, I could savor our duo's crooning of the title tune all day long-- even now. And to the movie itself, I say: "Yes, Yes", to a darn good musical!

warrenk-2 Two for Tea is a standard musical from the early 1950s enhanced by Gene Nelson's dancing and Eve Arden's characteristic wisecracks. Doris Day and Gordon MacRae are obviously fine singers and work well together. But I prefer Day in the musical western Calamity Jane and in her mid-decade dramatic turns in Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much and the Ruth Etting biopic Love Me or Leave Me. MacRae always seemed wooden to me but that may have been what was required during the period. I haven't seen him in other roles which demanded more from him other than to stand up and sing. The dancing gives the film life as in the Charleston number. Nelson shines when the film becomes his in the Crazy Rhythm jungle sequence and the solo dance on the staircase. I wonder what might have happened if he had been under contract to MGM instead of Warner Bros. Would two Genes at MGM have been one Gene too many? Who can say now, but it's pleasurable to imagine Nelson in a film directed by Stanley Donen.

writers_reign There are several reasons why anyone would go and see this; 1) They're a Doris Day buff, 2) they're into Broadway Musicals transposed to film or 3) they like 'real' songs, the kind with catchy and/or soaring melodies and literate lyrics. If we need a fourth selling point how about some classic 'supporting' actors not least Eve Arden, but not forgetting Billy DeWolfe and S.Z. 'Cuddles' Sakall. The plot, such as it is turns out to be a thin re-working of the Broadway hit No, No, Nanette, so thin in fact that they could have given a writing credit to Nick Charles. It's kicked off by one of the most unrealistic 'flashbacks' in movie history - which is saying something - when Zackall, coming upon the children of Day and MCrae wearing their parents old clothes and performing the Charlston (a ploy, incidentally, lifted straight from Coward's Bittersweet) proceeds to tell them how it really was back in 1929. The flashback opens with himself, learning via ticker-tape that the money he invested on behalf of his niece, Nanette (Day) is worthless, then switching to Day rehearsing song and dance with Gene Nelson and Gordon McCrae, something of which Zackall could have no direct knowledge, and then blithely following them separately and/or in groups. Of course in 1950 no one cared about sloppiness like this even in drama let alone a musical so best ignore it and revel in the score which, though uneven/unbalanced culled as it is from several sources, remains a fine example of great songwriting.