Transatlantic

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.