JoaoGFonseca

It's an interesting film, addressing themes and starting from a premise that are at odds with most science fiction films of the time.

Interestingly, the 1930s film with the most similarities to this one is perhaps "F. P. 1 Doesn't Answer," a 1932 German production. Predictably, both films point to the control of transatlantic traffic as a key geopolitical interest and allude to a context of international conspiracy. This one, specifically, addresses the issue of lobbying by arms companies and anticipates the possibility of a transatlantic tunnel being sabotaged, or even destroyed, by foreign powers.

Indeed, World War II was just around the corner, and within a few years, the Atlantic would be the scene of a titanic and bloody struggle for control between the Axis and Allied powers. The transport of goods and weapons across the Atlantic and the Alliance between the US and the UK would be crucial to the balance of power and the outcome of the war.

Also on the technological front, the film successfully anticipates the construction of large underwater tunnels, such as the Channel Tunnel that crosses the English Channel in the North Sea.

Despite its thematic originality and ability to anticipate the future, the film is average. The special effects, set design, costumes, and soundtrack aren't bad, but they fall short of the best science fiction films of the decade.

On a dramatic level, despite the strong performances of Madge Evans and Helen Vinson, both beautiful women, the film doesn't stand out. The story doesn't allow for a consistent character development and doesn't sufficiently explore the two love triangles or the power struggles between the shareholders.

The film focuses primarily on the vast human and material resources, the heroism, resilience, and great sacrifices required to build large-scale projects that will have a profound impact on the lives of the population. In this sense, it approaches the genre of docufiction or national propaganda epic, similar to Soviet films like "Cosmic Journey" from 1936.

In short, it's an average film, but with historical interest and some uniqueness.

Despite being a competent film, it suffers from the handicap of starting from a well-established premise and being very similar to other films in the genre.

Indeed, the successful formula of the previous films is fully respected: Once again, we have Boris Karloff playing the mad scientist; Once again, we have a young, beautiful, blonde, and intelligent woman in the scientist's orbit; Once again, the laboratory is located in an isolated location in an old, sinister, dark, and dilapidated building; Once again, we have a single assistant, who is physically or mentally limited; Once again, the surrounding population is afraid to approach the site; Once again, the scientist has been discredited by the rest of the scientific community and is resentful because of it; Once again, the possibility of eternal life is part of the subject of investigation.

However, despite all these commonplaces, the film successfully meets the requirements that made this genre so popular at the time (set design, characterizations, costumes, suspense, etc.). The story is well told, the performances are convincing, it manages to add something new, and it effectively provides good entertainment.

The novelty is mainly related to the connection of economic power to scientific research, interfering and conditioning its direction, and pressuring the achievement of results and their publication.

In short, it's far from a masterpiece, but even acknowledging the clichés, it's competent and, somehow, interesting.

The possibility of life after death and the existence of God is a very ambitious topic. If we add the critique, albeit very superficial, of the global economic organization, in which rich and powerful countries have influence over small and poor countries, often resorting to corruption or intimidation by force, the goal is harder.

The analysis of these complex issues within the context of a science fiction film, with a mad scientist who invented a machine capable of restoring life for six hours, just once, to any undamaged corpse, and in which the question of the ethical and moral limits of scientific research is also raised, is even more difficult.

If we add to all this a plot with a love triangle and the analysis of the importance of love, altruism, and respect for others in our lives, the bar is raised to stratospheric heights.

Indeed, the feeling we were left with after watching the film is that a much longer film, or even a series, would be needed to address all these issues with reasonable consistency. Indeed, the film promises a lot but falls short.

Despite the strong performances, the characters aren't fleshed out enough to gain the depth necessary to create empathy and for the dramatic process to be intense.

The only redeeming features are the boldness, the well-crafted special effects, the set design, the soundtrack, the costumes, and the bittersweet ending.

Still, despite falling short of initial expectations, and unsuccessfully mixing several genres, it is a film that deserves to be seen.