User reviews

Fascinating story, set in the near future (for the 1930s), about a joint American-British project to build an undersea tunnel from London to New York. The tunnel is the brainchild of engineer Richard Dix, who leads the work on building it. The project takes years and costs him dearly in the end.

I'm a huge classic movie buff but I had never even heard of this wonderful gem until today. It combines futuristic sci-fi technology with downbeat realism about how such a project could actually be accomplished and what it would cost, in terms of money and lives. The sets are absolutely jaw-dropping. This is 1935, people, and it wasn't even made with a huge Hollywood budget. Wait until you see the effort put into making this work. The sets, the gadgets, the special effects are all very impressive. No CGI here. This is a prime example of how good old-school could be. While this is all very cool, the movie does have more going for it than just looking great. The cast is solid, with iron-jawed Richard Dix taking the lead. Dix could be a wooden actor at times but here I thought he was very good. Beautiful Madge Evans is likable as his noble wife. Leslie Banks plays his best friend. Ladies, Leslie Banks has a shower scene. You're welcome. Good support from C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Sydney, and Helen Vinson. The characters in this film may be prone to melodramatics at times but I felt none of them were completely clichéd. I was surprised more than once by their actions. Also, nice guest appearances from Walter Huston and George Arliss, as the American President and British Prime Minister respectively.

The soap opera elements seem to factor into most of the complaints I've read. I really didn't think this part of the film was that bad, especially for this period when playing to the rafters was expected. Your tolerance on this may vary, however. The work on the tunnel, which comprises most of the runtime, is gripping stuff. This is one film that should appeal to a variety of movie fans. I definitely recommend you seek it out. Oh, and dig that awesome movie poster.

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.

A team of international scientists and engineers attempts to build a tunnel under the ocean.

The story was written by the amazing Curt Siodmak, based on the 1913 novel "Der Tunnel" by Bernhard Kellermann. Interestingly, "Der Tunnel" had already been filmed three times before, once as a German silent, "Der Tunnel" (1915), and then as two sound films "Der Tunnel" (German) and "Le Tunnel" (French), both released in 1933, and both directed by Curtis Bernhardt. The British version today remains the only one easily available.

Suggestions for such a structure actually go back to Michel Verne, son of Jules Verne, who wrote about it in 1888 in a story entitled "Un Express de l'avenir" (An Express of the Future). This story was published in English in Strand Magazine in 1895. As recently as the 1960s, the idea was again proposed, but then using vacuum tubes rather than more traditional modes of transport.

As for the film, it is worth seeing, if for no other reason than to get a feel for British science fiction in the 1930s. This approach seems much different than the boomin science fiction of the 1950s.

A grimly realistic story, set in the future (as visualized in 1935), about the building of an undersea tunnel between England and America. The opening scene (a meeting of millionaires and engineers discussing the project) is reminiscent of a similar scene in `Destination Moon', though it lacks the patriotic enthusiasm.

The movie's basic message is also similar to `Destination Moon': determined men doing a big job despite colossal odds. The special effects are remarkable, the `futuristic' production designs are gorgeous, and the music is effective. There are some truly gripping moments in this fine motion picture. Especially memorable is the huge mechanism that drills the tunnel beneath the ocean.

Modern day tunneling machines are amazingly similar to the one portrayed in this 67-year-old movie. Watch the Discovery Channel's `Extreme Machines' episode about tunneling machines if you'd like to compare for yourself.

The final scene, showing cars entering the English entrance to the completed tunnel, is impressive when compared to the `chunnel' which now bridges England and Europe. `Transatlantic Tunnel' makes a great second feature for `Things to Come'.

The concept of the movie is very basic: the building of a tunnel connecting the eastern United States with the island of Great Britain. If this were actually possible, it would probably have been done long before now -- but this film is an excellent portrayal of the possibilities. It's quite entertaining for not only fans of old movies, but for history buffs as well -- and even students of transportation should enjoy it!

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.

This science fiction drama from Gaumont had previously been filmed three times in France and Germany. American engineer Richard "Mac" McAllan (Richard Dix) proposes an audacious undertaking: the construction of an underground tunnel beneath the sea bed that will connect London to New York. The massive undertaking involves multiple investors and years of construction time. Mac neglects his wife Ruth (Madge Evans) who seeks comfort with Mac's best friend Frederick (Leslie Banks), while chief investor Lloyd (C. Aubrey Smith) struggles to secure the funds necessary to keep going, while his own daughter Varlia (Helen Vinson) falls in love with Mac.

The science fiction elements are largely kept in the background via set design, the "futuristic" appearance of automobiles, the use of video phones, etc. I would have liked the film more if it had concentrated on the engineering aspects of the construction, or even more on the backroom dealing and politicking of keeping the undertaking afloat. But unfortunately more time is spent on the emotional toil caused by Mac's overwork, and the weak and tedious love triangle. The performances are perfunctory, with the wild-eyed yet still wooden Dix contrasting with Banks, whose facial paralysis often makes it hard to tell what his expression is supposed to convey from scene to scene. I wanted to like this more than I did, but there's still some worthwhile moments among the cliches.

Richard McAllan (Richard Dix) is an engineer with an idea. After the construction of a tunnel in the English Chanel, he proposes a tunnel between Britain and America to a group of wealthy industrialists. They agree after some hesitation. This movie follows the long struggle to build the tunnel over many years.

This is 30's sci-fi futurism. I don't really care about the story. I barely care about the construction project. This is like making a drama about the Big Dig in Boston. I do like some of the futurism in this movie. It is a time capsule of this era's sci-fi ideas. That has some entertainment value.

Finally saw this movie after many years of eager anticipation only to find myself bored. I have to agree with Maltin's summary of the two-dimensional characterization of the players in this movie. The characters in this movie do nothing more than bicker and argue.

The movie was released in Britain in 1935. A darkening time for Europe was on the horizon with Adolph Hitler's rise to power in Germany. The characters in the movie hint at using the tunnel for uniting the "English" speaking people of the world; not to mention the transportation of armaments to Britain should war break out! Perhaps this movie was supposed to quell the fears of the British by offering an avenue of escapism in the promise of new and revolutionary technology (ie. the Radium Drill!) to avert war.

Never the less the movie does utilize futuristic sets and models that were ahead of their time and still hold their own today. Transportation historians will find this movie interesting. 6.5 out 10.

When I first read about 'The Tunnel' in 1970 it was described as lost, so it came as a pleasant surprise when eight years later I got an opportunity to see it since until then I hadn't realised that sound films could be lost.

Based on the novel by Bernard Kellerman, the film itself - set in a speculative future when the Channel Tunnel had already been completed in 1940 - is unfortunately more notable for its existence rather than its achievement, with too much talk and not enough tunnel, devoting far too much time to the hero's domestic trials. But it has a definite period charm, the use of toxic gas as the operation's biggest obstacle presumably drawing on memories still vivid of the havoc wrought by chlorine in the trenches.

An interesting futuristic film on the premise of building a tunnel under the Atlantic ocean to link Britian and the USA. Richard Dix is his usual stalwart presence as McAllan, an engineer who has in this scenario already created a tunnel under the English Channel, uniting France and England as of 1940, five years in the future from when the film was released.

There are the usual disasters, delays and money problems. The crux of the film though rises from the tragic flaw of hubris (pride), which causes tragedy within the family of McAllan due to his dogged determination to put his job/his vision above all else.

A slight problem results from casting both leading women (Madge Evans and Helen Vinson) since they resemble each other so closely, one has trouble following who is on screen. The best moment is the meeting of the two late in the film and the touching and illuminating scene that results.

Leslie Banks is excellent as the best friend. Henry Oscar is a marvelous villain, self-assured and wickedly serene.

Arliss and Huston have two back to back scenes, beginning at 43 minutes in and one hour and fifteen minutes in. They are quite short and constitute cameos.

The real star here is the art direction of the tunnel itself.

It is kept vague as to exactly how the USA and the UK are going to benefit from this tunnel, however. Seems more problematic than somewhat as opposed to sea or air travel.

It's quite gripping and quite enjoyable. Recommended.

How do you make a story as potentially exciting as building a tunnel from England to the U.S. dull and uninvolving? If you want to know, watch the dull camera-work, plodding direction, trite script and melodramatic acting in "Transatlantic Tunnel." Too bad, because the special effects and art direction are first rate for the period. They are,in many ways, superior to those used in "Things to Come." I have difficulty faulting the acting style used in "Transatlantic Tunnel;" it's a carryover from silent films, and many movies of the period are equally overacted. However, the script is strictly "by-the-numbers," and the direction of actors is so slap-dash, it's impossible to care much about them.

Little, if any, attempt is made to age the actors, in a story that spans at least 7 years. Only the child "grows up" to be a man, and his scenes are brief and unmoving.

The film feels excruciating slow when it generates any emotional involvement at all.

The film's message of "peace through joining the English-speaking peoples, is embarrassingly naive, even for the time. When the "English-speaking peoples" get together, it's generally for anything but peace.

I give "Transatlantic Tunnel" a "5," and that for the special effects and art direction. Entertainment value is pretty near zero.

It's always interesting to see science fiction from the past and see what the conception of the world is from years past. How close are we to realizing a tunnel across one of earth's oceans?

In 1994 the English Channel Tunnel commenced operations and at that it is only the second largest tunnel on the planet. The Seikan Tunnel which connects the Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu is the largest. At that the Swiss will have beaten both of these when the Gotthard tunnel is finished which will be under several Alps speeding transportation across Switzerland and Europe in general.

Politics as well nature delayed the construction of the English Channel Tunnel. So when and if we're ever ready to cross the Atlantic Ocean, by that time we may be rocketing to different worlds.

In the world that The Tunnel is set in the construction of this undersea passage will forever cement the home world of the British Empire to the United States of America. At that point the English speaking people's of the planet will take on anybody. At least President Walter Huston of the USA and future Prime Minister George Arliss hope that the powers will be joined at the hip forever so to speak.

The reason this is all possible is a radium drill that scientist Leslie Banks has invented. The Colonel Goethals of the project is hard driving American Richard Dix. Dix sacrifices all for the project including family because he believes in it so. The women in both their lives at different points are Madge Evans and Helen Vinson.

The sheer idea of the technological achievement dwarfs the story and the players. The special effects are primitive by today's standards, still the film does entertain. When we get into the personal lives of those involved, the film veers over into the melodramatic.

Some thirty years after this film there was this Grade C science fiction film that involved a trans Pacific tunnel. But that was being worked on in secret by the Communist Chinese to invade the United States. That epic was called Battle Beneath the Earth and it is the worst nightmare of every demagogic politician who worked up the crowds concerning the yellow peril.

I guess the moral of both stories is when Occidentals build it, it's a good thing, when Orientals do it it's bad.

A thin story, but amazingly executed Sci-Fi effects for it's time!

This movie is set in "the future" - at least the future as it was envisaged in 1935, when it was made. It's actually never really established when this is set, but all things considered it had some pretty impressive predictions of futuristic devices (as well as, inevitably, a few misses.) So ,for example, there's reference to a tunnel having been built under the English Channel between Britain and France (which we today call the "chunnel") in 1940. That's several decades too early, but it gives us a reference point; the movie is set later than that (probably significantly later than that.) There's also apparently fairly widespread use of television, and even video-messaging "Skype-like" devices. Mind you, the movie misses the Second World War as far as we know. Helicopter-type airplanes never did become the rage, and there also seems to be an assumption of the survival of the "British Empire" - as late in the movie the King of England is referred to as the "Ruler of the British Empire" - a phrase that would have disappeared from the lingo not too long after this movie was made really. Still, it's a pretty impressive bit of future-gazing.

The story revolves around an engineer who has invented a new kind of steel that's strong enough to allow for the building of a tunnel under the Atlantic Ocean between England and the United States. The scenes set inside the tunnel while it's being built are starkly impressive - looking like one would expect such a massive works project to look like. The work is dangerous, which is well portrayed, and a lot of men lose their lives working on the project. That, in a way, becomes the real subplot of the movie.

A lot of lives are lost in the tunnel, but lives are also lost because of the tunnel. McAllan (Richard Dix) for example - the engineer in charge of the project - sacrifices literally everything (up to and including his own family) for the sake of this project. The project takes over his life. He eats, drinks and sleeps the tunnel. There's nothing else that even remotely competes with the tunnel in his life. That leads to all kinds of personal melodrama mixed in with the technical scenes about the building of the tunnel.

Maybe I'm looking at this too much with almost 80 years of distance, but as I watched this and the negative effects the tunnel was having on so many lives, I couldn't help but think of this as a classic white elephant public works project. It's almost 5500 kilometres from London to New York City as the crow flies. Who would use this tunnel? What possible practical use would there be for it? Yes, it creates some jobs - so the unions support it. It makes money - so the corporations support it. Because it does both - the governments support it. And for the sake of national pride - the people support it. But for what? Apparently there's an international threat brewing from a coalition of "Eastern nations." How will the tunnel help with that? I guess the Americans could ship arms and men to England through the tunnel (if the threat is from Eastern Europe) or Britain could do the same for America (if the threat is from Asia) but this still seemed to be a waste of time, energy and lives.

But that's 80 years later. It didn't make for a bad movie, but I would have liked a clearer explanation of why the thing was being built in the first place. As it is, it was apparently being built - just because we can! (6/10)

Why is a tunnel needed when there are already planes and ships? To haul goods across the Atlantic like a superhighway?Cargo ships are not sufficient for this purpose? For another mode of transportation, like a colossal non-stop subway ride? Film does not explain the practical purposes of the tunnel. How do they get to the bottom of the ocean, and how do they blast into the ocean floor to first start digging the tunnel? (Pressure from descending into the depths). Film does not explain.The film does hint at some sort of humanity-uniting purpose which the tunnel will produce. But how? I would imagine the novel would answer these questions.

I was 11 years old in 1935, and an avid movie goer. I was absolutely fascinated by the idea of digging a tunnel from England to America, no more unbelievable at that time, than building a tunnel under the Channel from England to France which was actually begun by Napoleon in 1802 and completed in the 1990's. It is now over 70 years since I saw the film and cannot remember much of the detail except that the lead actor was Richard Dix who if my memory serves me correctly was the chief engineer. I don't know why it is referred as science fiction as many movies over the years have to do with construction projects, and I saw it as a real happening. Perhaps towards the end of this century it may be accomplished.

Visually quite Impressive, this Depression Era Sci-Fi Film is one of the few in the Genre outside Kid-Stuff Serials, because Science Fiction never Really Caught On until the Fifties. It nicely Aligns with "Metropolis" (1927), "Just Imagine" (1930), and "Things to Come" (1936).

It seems a bit Early to Wear its War Paranoia so Heavily and Much is Made about how a Transatlantic Tunnel Uniting Britain and America will Stem the Tide of another World War and makes the Case that it will End War altogether.

Much Melodrama concerning the Incredible Feat of Construction. The Cost in terms of Dollars and Human Lives. The Strength of the Movie however is the Eye-Popping SFX. The Art-Deco Set Designs are Amazing and the Slick Production is Top-Notch and Enthralls, Excites, and Captivates at Every Turn.

Two-Way "skype" Like Television Screens of All Sizes Populate the Picture and there is Some Attempt to Show Futuristic Aircraft and Automobiles. The Over Baked Drama is Almost Deadly at Times with its Heavy Handed British Style Acting, and Subplots Concerning Family Strife and Capitalism, but Not Enough to Take Away from the Overall Enjoyment of the Spectacle.

Overall, Recommended Despite the Melodramatics. It Remains an Eye-Candy Treat for Young and Old and Looks as Good as Any British Film of the Era.