The Tunnel of Love
The Tunnel of Love
NR | 21 November 1958 (USA)
The Tunnel of Love Trailers

A series of misunderstandings leaves a married man believing he has impregnated the owner of an adoption agency, and that she will be his and his wife's surrogate.

Reviews
JLRMovieReviews

Doris Day and Richard Widmark!, yes Richard Widmark, are a married couple who move to the country to leave the city life behind them. They are also in the middle of adopting, because "they say" when you adopt a child, you have one of your own, which is what they really want. That basically is the plot, without complications. The last time I saw this was on the last weekend of August in 1997, so I have a mental connection with this movie and a tragedy in the news. I didn't really have good memories of it, but, upon seeing it recently, I found it surprisingly funny near the beginning. But most of its jokes comes with innuendos of a particular sort, part of it being about having babies (I did enjoy the line, about "exhausting" every possible means in having a baby.) The movie seemed to enjoy making fun of Gig Young's proclivities, who is a next-door neighbor whose wife knows nothing about his extra-curricular activities. Directed by Gene Kelly, this should have been made in color and maybe with a more comedic actor. I mean, really, Richard Widmark! He's a great actor in westerns and rough 'n' tough movies, but here he seems out of his element. Despite the amusing situations and inevitable complications from the presence of the investigator from the baby agency, which seems a bit confusing to the viewer, this still feels like it's missing something. It simply doesn't come off very well. It's not your usual brisk Doris Day fare, and that is probably why it bombed at the time it came out. If you're a die hard Doris day fan, you may want to see this once, but then you can find Pillow Talk for some real baby making.

... View More
SimonJack

One of Webster's definitions of humor describes it as being ludicrous or absurdly incongruous. So, people who decry this movie as such might themselves be without a sense of humor. As for claims of miscasting of Richard Widmark, I think that shows how we become so set in our views that we stereotype actors. I don't ever recall having seen this film in the theater when I was in high school, or on TV in later years. It is part of the Doris Day DVD collection I recently bought. And these 50 plus years later, I found this to be a very entertaining and well-acted movie. The script is a very good general portrayal of the times and how people felt about children, family, fidelity, etc. Gig Young's part might be a rare exception in real life, but his straying character is important for the movie where Widmark's character plays off of him. I think Widmark was exceptionally good in his role. Like most other reviewers, I probably had a notion of Widmark as a gangster, tough guy or bad guy, with an occasional Army or Navy hero thrown in. But here he gives a great performance – out of his usual character – of any man, and how he might have felt and thought and behaved like in such a situation in the 1950s. I think the consternation, anxiety and angst that Widmark shows at different times makes him so real. The stereotypical actors we might normally think of for this role would not have given it that real human touch. Theirs would have been the light treatment where everyone has a good laugh in the film. This was a masterful job, in my view, of humor with pathos. Only a very good actor could pull that off, and I think Widmark did it very well. To be fair with moviegoers, I must say that I think I probably would not have enjoyed this film as much when it was made. Again, mostly because of my idea of what Widmark should play. We also had different ideas back then of Doris Day and the roles she should play. And that's probably why this movie didn't do well at the box office. But today, I'm glad I can enjoy this film as a very good example of acting by the entire cast in a rather sophisticated comedy. The comedy comes mostly from innuendo and misunderstandings among the characters. As for the plot – I like to remember that Hollywood puts out fiction even with its most adept efforts for accuracy in biographical and historical films. But for comedy, some of the very best films of all time have been those with the most unlikely plots. About the only thing in this movie that doesn't make sense is its title with accompanying song. But then, that's in the congruity of Hollywood humor. Or did I miss something in that too?

... View More
woofydude

I really liked this film as long as I didn't pay that much attention to the booze and tranquilizers. Sure, this is 1957-58, but wasn't that Westport house fabulous!!! It seems that everyone was moving to Westport at the time. Think Lucy and Desi from I Love Lucy and the Lucy Desi Comedy Hour.I just saw this movie last night by the way of TiVo. It was adult in nature and showed that Richard Widmark could do comedy. His performance is a real gem. It shows him as an overworked husband who with Doris as his wife are trying to have a baby. So they adopt, and everyone says that the kid looks a lot like Richard. At the end, Doris is pregnant, everyone is happy, which is a fitting ending to this war between marrieds and how two people can have problems not trusting the other partner. Sure explains life today.

... View More
liddydoo

How about the actress Elisabeth Fraser who played Alice Pepper -- any fans out there? She went on the fame as the long-suffering Sgt. Hogan -- girlfriend to television's Sgt. Bilko. Has written a hilarious journal on "life on location" during the filming of the Western "The Way West" with Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum, Richard Widmark, and a teenaged Sally Field.

... View More