The Worst Film Ever

Best movie ever!

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

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.

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.

This film has long been available in a 71 minute form, and I believe only recently has surfaced in its full 94 minute version. Having seen it I can understand why it was cut. From an engineering viewpoint the premise is interesting and indeed there are some nice touches in it using early special effects, like video phones etc. At the time such ideas were left to Flash Gordon serials (mostly). It also tries to show the devastating effect that one mans obsession can have on his family. This is where the film sadly falls short of the mark. By concentrating more on this side of the story, the film all but ignores the tunnel completely. Were it not for the volcano impeding the progress of the tunnel, it would have been finished without anyone really noticing. Even George Arliss and Walter Hustons presence (limited to about three scenes in total each) can do little to save this movie.