Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Al Westerfield Several reviewers mentioned that this film is a perfect companion for Things to Come. That's because the model work for both was done by Ned Mann. In late silents through the 1930s Mann's work was unsurpassed. He flooded Palestine in Noah's Ark (1928). Then he went to the South Pole in Dirigible (1931) and destroyed Manhattan in Deluge (1933). His sets were so realistic because they were huge, probably unsurpassed in size until 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968). In Transatlantic Tunnel the model train seems to come from infinity, pass by the camera and go to infinity (in actuality a quick wipe and film reversal). I'm a professional model builder so I watch this and the other films mentioned on a regular basis and continue to be amazed. The full size sets are also well done, particularly when combined with Mann's miniatures.In its abbreviated form called The Tunnel, the editing leaves a lot of plot holes. Now that the complete version is available it makes a lot more sense. However, the plot is leaden and the acting sub-par. If you're into model special effects you'll watch it again and again; otherwise, once is enough.

audiomagnate "Transatlantic Tunnel" opens with some pretty good shtick. The camera pulls back from a tight shot of a live orchestra, slowly revealing a group of well-heeled yet obviously bored listeners. A man leans over to his wife and asks, "Will this tune ever end?" "It's Beethoven. He's dead." she responds. A few more wisecracks about how tiresome classical music follow, but that's about it for intentional humor that actually works. Minutes later we get this scene of men bathing together:"Don't forget it's your son's birthday" "It looks more like yours." "Why?" "You've got your birthday suit on!"That gem of a punchline is delivered by the film's star, Richard McAllan, played by Richard Dix, whose laughably - for a while anyway - bad overacting supply the only other yuks for the next excruciatingly long hour and change.The only thing left to hold the viewer's attention are the futuristic tunnel scenes, which look amazingly real, complete with streamlined trains gliding along, and the spot on futuristic cars. If the tunnel scenes were done with models, they're as good as what is being done today. If not, they must have cost a fortune to produce. As far as the cars go, they look better than Tucker's famous 1948 sedans that were billed as being so far ahead of their time thirteen years after this film was made.Everything else is simply tedious and poorly done. You can pretty much figure out what's going to happen with the main characters ten minutes in. The only real struggle is figuring out which is worse, the dialog or the acting. Madge Evans, who plays McAllan's silently suffering blind wife has some scenes that somehow manage to surpass Dix's in outright shamelessly bad acting. The plot itself is about as believable as a "Bones" episode.From a technical standpoint however, "Transatlantic Tunnel" excels. Hitchcock films of this era look and sound ancient and feeble in comparison. The photography, lighting, set design and sound are all first rate, and look like high budget Hollywood productions from the forties. This fact, and the uncannily accurate view into the future made the film worth watching for me, but if atrocious acting and tortuously bad scripts put you off, you should pass on this one.

MartinHafer THE TRANSATLANTIC TUNNEL is a sci-fi film set in the near future. The story is about a joint American-British effort to build this tunnel. Additionally, the toll this takes on the men (in particular the chief engineer) and the behind the scenes machinations are explored.This is a really neat sci-fi movie in many ways. While the idea of a transatlantic tunnel is ridiculously far-fetched, the special effects for this British film are amazingly realistic and well executed. It's really too bad, then, that the soap opera built around it is poor. However, because the film is so astounding to look at, it's still well worth a look.The British film makers enlisted Richard Dix for the lead in this film. He was a big name for the time and he would presumably bring American audiences to see this film. Whether or not this worked, I have no idea, but although I like Dix in other films, here he isn't particularly distinguished. This would be more obvious had it not been that many of the British cast were pretty dreadful. And, because the dialog was so poor, it only made this seem worse.As I said, this is all pretty sad, as the special effects were great. Seeing giant television sets, videophones, cool futuristic cars and the tunnel itself were all absolutely amazing. In fact, it's one of the best sci-fi films of the time and this aspect of the film alone merit a 9 or 10--not bad for a relatively low budget film.Overall, it's a great curio that you can enjoy provided you can wade through the soapy story.

ksf-2 Quite similar to "Just Imagine" from 1930, where they try to give some insight into what the future will look like. Some cool inventions, like picture telephones, airplanes that can hover like the Osprey, and the "radium" tunnel drill. They even talk about the man who "built the Channel Tunnel in 1940" . Another viewer mentions that at the end, they saw cars driving into the tunnel, but I never saw that. I saw the 92 min, 40 sec version on TCM in March 2008, so it seems there's a minute or two missing from the TCM print. "Tunnel" stars Richard Dix and Leslie Banks, with various other co-stars. It combines the challenge of building a tunnel (where the shareholders keep pulling the financing) with a troubled family life. They even take a couple swipes at millionaires. George Arliss, star of the silents, appears as the British Prime Minister. The big shot shareholders take a minute to point out that the lead engineer is "just another employee, and he must remember that!" When he asked why they couldn't tell him what was wrong over the telephone, they insisted he come in person... I wondered if they were avoiding saying things over the air, but they don't indicate that (this was just prior to WW II) I also felt bad for the workers down in the tunnel -- heavy equipment is being pulled up on cable, but no-one is wearing hardhats. Fun to watch if you keep in mind that it was made in 1935. I could have done without the silly side portraits of the key characters at the last couple minutes, but someone must have felt that added something. Entertaining early science fiction.