Comedy???

Maybe not really a comedy but since it is not action or drama (in pure sense of the term), then it fits better in the comedy genre.
But any movie where Richard Widmark would act that weird would have to be a comedy.
I agree though that there really weren't any laughs.

OP, you sound very young. I found this film very funny.

I'm a female in my 40's and I thought this movie was quite enjoyable. I'm a fan of Doris Day movies so maybe that is why I liked it more than most on here seemed to. I almost didn't watch it because of all the negative reviews on here but I'm glad I did. I thought it was great. Not one of the all time best but definitely worth watching and yes, I would classify it as a comedy. I honestly don't understand what all the bellyaching is about.

I agree, Plimpien, and I'm a female in my 40's. I was surprised to see such a mockery of marriage in a 1958 movie. (I expected to see such a casual devotion to marriage to be in a 2008 movie, not 1958.)

While I did like some aspects of the Doris Day/Richard Widmark characters and their interaction, try as I might, I found nothing funny about the neighbors. I felt sorry for the disrespected wife, and worried about the children, whose father yelled at them while they played outside. I was also saddened by the drinking that was taking place so openly during the day and every time something "stressful" happened. (I know that people didn't know the harmful effects of alcohol, especially on a pregnant woman, in the 1950's, so there was a different mindset.)

I'm no prude, believe me. But this movie didn't sit to well with me. I had such high hopes for it.

I think that if they had shown the inspector from Rock-a-by dropping off the husband, and driving away from the hotel, it would have been funny to see the husband's reaction and the events that transpired afterward. (Unless I missed something, the hotel scene left me wondering if he had spent the night with the inspector, until it was cleared up at the ending.

Yes, that's it!! Not to belabor my point, but this reminds me of the scene on "Three's Company," when Mr. Roper thought that Chrissy was pregnant, but it turned out to be a wart on her hand. If they had kept the viewer in the dark about Chrissy's wart, like the hotel scene in "The Tunnel of Love," the entire episode wouldn't have been nearly as funny.

Since they made a slight alteration to the screenplay, I found it absolutely hilarious that the bombshell from the adoption agency inexplicably returns to go on some kind of odd "date" with Widmark. Unless she was attempting to seduce him (as in the original screenplay) this whole sequence makes absolutely no sense.

To add to the bemusement, how about adopting a child that ends up looking like the adoptive father. Most would chalk that up to coincidence, but in this film everyone makes the leap that he fathered an illegitimate child and somehow arranged, through a reputable adoption agency, to adopt that particular child. I don't even know, logistically, how that would work.

I'm a 60 year old male and watching Tunnel Of Love for the first time. I love Doris but this is just plain weird. I haven't laughed once and I'm over an hour in. Doris spends the first 15 minutes trying to get Widmark to f*ck her (under the guise of a baby, yes). Then the adoption lady coming back and telling Widmark how attractive he is and them going on a 'date'. WTF? It has not aged well and is not funny (even in a satirical/black comedy way).