utgard14 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.

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.

Bob-45 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.

Bruce Cook 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'.