Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

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.

There's an art deco look to the streamlined images of many scenes from THE TUNNEL, giving it the futuristic look it needs to succeed as science fiction. There are even TV screens and/or videophones being used in 1935 for conversations between RICHARD DIX and his wife, MADGE EVANS, both of whom have to spend too much time on the domestic drama behind the main story of the tunnel.Their unhappy marriage comes into play when he becomes heavily involved in construction of an Atlantic tunnel connecting the British mainland to the U.S.A. "His real self stays behind in the tunnel," she tells LESLIE BANKS, her husband's co-worker. Later, their grown son becomes a worker in the tunnel but is tragically killed during a volcanic burst of lava that forces a section of the tunnel to be sealed off by emergency doors so that many other lives can be spared.There is much talk about the "depth of the Atlantic" and "the character of the sea bed", and references to "new steel and radium drills" that are supposed to make the concept of a transatlantic tunnel possible. And to the credit of the filmmakers, they do make such an undertaking look realistically possible, at least for the duration of the story.C. AUBREY SMITH lends his sober presence to a good supporting role but the film is largely concerned with the domestic troubles of Dix and his wife. MADGE EVANS looks so much like Norma Shearer in the glossy close-ups she gets and was clearly one of the most classically beautiful of the '30s film actresses.But when the action is centered on the tunnel, the film remains fascinating to watch, beautifully photographed in B&W. Unfortunately, RICHARD DIX is given to overacting at every opportunity, particularly during the melodramatic situations involving his marriage.Summing up: Melodramatic, but in many ways, ahead of its time in true sci-fi style. WALTER HUSTON as an American president and GEORGE ARLISS as a British Prime Minister have cameo roles.

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.

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.