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

MartinHafer In the early 50s, Gordon MacRea and Doris Day made a couple cute period pictures together--"By the Light of the Silvery Moon" and "On Moonlight Bay". Both were essentially one long story about a nice family in the 1910s. There was singing but mostly the emphasis was on the comedy and character development. Just before they made these two wonderful films, they also made "Tea for Two" and, although pleasant, the film is clearly not in league with their later collaborations. Why? Because story and character development clearly are NOT that important--it's the music. Now for me, I like musicals but the story always must take precedence.This story is told through a long flashback when Uncle Max (Cuddles Sakall) tells a group of kids (which includes a very young Elinor Donahue) the story of how Nanette (Day) lost her fortune and then miraculously got it back all because of a Broadway musical and a bet that Nanette cannot go 48 without saying 'no' to every question posed to her.The plot, to put it lightly, is feather-light. It makes very little sense and seems to be there simply as a plot device to justify all the music by Day and MacRae. Some of that, by the way, is very nice. Oddly, however, the title song is, at least to me, one of the weakest tunes in the film. I did enjoy Sakall---as pretty much everyone enjoys him in films. Overall, enjoyable fluff but absolutely nothing more.

larry-labati I am normally a very big fan of Doris Day, but this film was certainly not one of her best.The following year's "I'll See You in My Dreams" is so much better, plot-wise, music wise, and especially "acting-wise".Some of the songs are quite enjoyable to hear, however, the production numbers are very "clunkily" staged, and the fact that this film is supposed to be set in late 20's and no attempt is made at authentic period detail (except for the cars) is really quite annoying, and does takeaway from the overall enjoyment of the musical.Not terrible, but definitely not Doris' best.Surprisingly, I have heard that this was one of the biggest "hits" of 1950. Huh??

theowinthrop Before getting into the issues of musical score, cinematography, cast, direction, and storyline, one has to always bring in some baggage with "Tea For Two" (known on stage as "No No Nanette!"). Supposedly baseball team impresario and theatrical producer Harry Frazee, in an effort to raise the cash for a new musical with music by Vincent Youmans, sold his best player on the Boston Red Sox, George Herman "Babe" Ruth, to his friend Col. Ruppert of the New York Yankees, thus guaranteeing New York would dominate baseball for the next century while Boston came close but never got the gold ring (despite Ted Williams and others). Since the start of the present century Boston has won the World Series twice, whereas the Yankees have not won any. One can safely say the so-called "curse of the Bambino" is dead. But I wish to add, you may hate Frazee as much as you want for trading Ruth and several other great players to New York. But the money went into other productions he was pushing, not "No No Nanette." The musical came about four years after the stupid trade of Ruth. So this is not a case of Boston's loss was the gain of Vincent Youmans fans.The musical has been remade three times, with this version in 1950, starring Doris Day, Gordon MacRae, Eve Arden, Gene Nelson, S.Z. Sakall, and Billy De Wolfe. The 1950 version, re-entitled "Tea For Two", was directed by David Butler, and is considered the best of the three. It does contain the big two hits by Youmans from the show ("Tea for Two" and "I Want to be Happy"), but it also has tunes by the Gershwins and others, including Harry Warren and Al Dubin (this is a Warners Brothers film, and they got full use of tunes like "I Only Have Eyes For You!").The production is very nice in terms of color film stock, and scenery (particularly a 1929 style mansion). But best is the acting - the cast is not only good, but as the material is good the cast does very well with it.Day is a stage struck heiress living with her Wall Street broker uncle Sakall. She was left a fortune by her father, but Sakall is her guardian and is in charge of the fortune. Unfortunately he invested the money (despite the advise of his lawyer Bill Goodwin) in stock instead of stable but small return government bonds. Comes the crash and Sakall has lost his money (although he still has much of potentially valuable stock) as well as all of Day's. The plot concerns how Day is being pursued by De Wolfe for financial assistance in floating his Broadway production of "No No Nanette". De Wolfe, in his career, frequently played unlikeable types - either sneering know-it-alls (wherein he was a younger "Clifton Webb" type, without Webb's actual wisdom), or semi-conman (like the minstrel performer in "Dixie" with Bing Crosby). Nobody likes De Wolfe (Day has already had some history with him and is waiting for him to repay a $10,000.00 loan). Even Sakall can't stand him. But he is the man heading the production. He is trying to get Day's backing, but trying to somehow convince his girlfriend/leading lady (Patrice Wymore) to give up the lead to Day. Wymore has history with the choreographer (Gene Nelson) but has thrown him over for De Wolfe (however she is increasingly regretting this error). Gordon MacRae is the songwriter on the show, and dislikes the lies De Wolfe spreads about his family's health and need for medical care - lies that De Wolfe uses to try to pry cash out of Day). MacRae also is falling for Day (and she certainly likes him). Through a complicated mistake Day agrees to a wager with Sakall: she will not answer any question with a "Yes" for 48 hours, and if she doesn't she will be given the $25,000.00 for the show. However, if she does say "Yes" she can't spend any money for one year. So the plot keeps following moments when Day has to disappoint people by denying any question (even when she plans the reverse). On the other hand, Sakall, knowing there is no money, tries again and again to get her to say "yes". At one point, when trying to make an appointment, Sakall's crazy wager works against him when the negative Day annoys a motorcycle cop who arrests them both.This plot may sound trite, but musical comedy plots were frequently like that in the 1920s. I may add that the crazy balancing act between Day and Wymore that De Wolff is forced to go through is funny, as is the typically cynical comments of Day's secretary and friend (Eve Arden) on the antics of the others, and belatedly her own attempts at romance.It actually works - a good musical which entertains, which is the purpose of most musicals. It's nice to recall that there was a time when our musical theater was welcomely naive and pleasant - not the musical of thought and discussion of the 1950s and 1960s - not the musical of the age of Sondheim, but only the musical of the age of Youmans, Gershwin, and Berlin.