The short was popular with audiences in 1935 and was generally well received by critics and theater owners.
Variety, the entertainment industry's leading trade paper at the time, gives the film high marks in its March 27 issue. In its review of
Tit for Tat, the paper also alludes to news reports that Laurel and Hardy's partnership had recently ended due to Stan's recurring disputes with producer Hal Roach:
The Film Daily, another widely read trade publication in 1935, was impressed by all the "Grand Laughs" in
Tit for Tat. In its March 23 review, the paper welcomes what it views as the comedy duo's return to broad physical comedy and, like
Variety, draws special attention to the shoplifter's role in the film:
Motion Picture Herald, yet another influential trade publication in 1935, gives the film a somewhat restrained, clinical assessment in its March 10 issue, describing the short as a "Good Comedy" with "numerous laugh-provoking situations". In addition to providing reviews and news about the film industry,
Motion Picture Herald regularly published the reactions of theater owners or "exhibitors" to the features and shorts they presented. Their reactions to
Tit for Tat were mixed, although most were very positive. "A lot of laughs", reports Roy Irvine, owner of the Ritz Theatre in
Ritzville, Washington, while H. G. Stettmund of the H. and S. Theatre in
Chandler, Oklahoma, describes it "the best these boys have made for a long time." Some theater owners, however, considered the film to be a mediocre production and only a modest box-office draw. C. L. Niles, the owner of Niles Theatre in
Anamosa, Iowa, was not impressed with the short. In the April 20 issue of
Motion Picture Herald, he grades it "Just fair" and remarks that his theater simply "got by" in screening it, suggesting that the film, as least in Anamosa, had not been very successful in boosting ticket sales. In
Eminence, Kentucky, the owner of that town's cinema, A. N. Miles, found it to be a decidedly weak comedy. "Not a good laugh in the whole two reels", he complains in the July 13 issue of
Motion Picture Herald. ==References==