Reviews & Ratings for
Four Sided Triangle More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

19 reviews in total

---

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Interesting early Hammer sci-fi, 30 January 2006

Author: Chris Gaskin from Derby, England

Four Sided Triangle was one of the first science fiction movies from Hammer. Another early one was Spaceways, made around the same time as this.

Two mad scientists and a woman make a machine that can make copies of anything and when one of them marries the woman, he decides to make a copy of her as he is in love with her too. He succeeds but the problem is, her copy isn't so keen on him. At the end, the barn where their lab is burns down leaving one of the women alive. But which one?

This is rather interesting stuff from Hammer and is a good early attempt by them at sci-fi. Bigger things followed though...

The cast includes Barbara Payton (Bride of the Gorilla), James Hayter (Tom Brown's Schooldays), Stephen Murray and John Van Eyssen.

This movie is worth seeing. Excellent.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Guy loses girl...twice!, 22 February 2001

Author: Brian Manville (Sterno-2) from Frederick, MD

Hey, guys! Did you and your buddy ever chase after the same girl, and lose the girl to your buddy? Sure, we all have. How many of you went out and tried to find a girl *just* like the one you lost? Okay, most of us are still here. Now, how many of you actually went out and tried to reproduce the girl of your dreams? Nope, me neither.

Robin and Bill are buddy mad scientists who are both childhood friends with Lena. Robin & Bill develop a device which makes an exact duplicate of whatever you put into the machine. The amount of energy required to change energy to matter, let alone the ability to exactly order that energy into anything useful, is beyond comprehension or reason. However, it does pose an interesting thought experiment about the nature of identity and what makes one unique in God's universe.

Helen is tortured because she realizes not only does she not have her own identity, but that the man she loves is loved by her "twin". Her world-view is the same as Lena's was before she married Robin. Helen is depressed to the point of suicide realizing that she can never be anything but a shadow of Lena. Bill is miserable because he has lost the girl of his dreams twice to the same man. His cowardace in love contrasts sharply to the point of curiousity with his impetuous, heart-on-his sleeve emotions in other aspects of his life.

The ending gets a demerit because of the need to dress them exactly for the first time in order to build a dramatic conclusion for the audience. Considering that the barn fire claims either Lena or Helen, a more dramatic ending would have had the survivor wrapped in a blanket, and the eventual hospital scene played out there. The emotion of the discovery of the survivor against the burning fire would dovetail nicely. However, this is nitpicking in an otherwise great movie.

Sterno says pull Euclid out of geometry class to watch Four Sided Triangle.

---

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A Real Body Double, 17 April 2006

Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC

Rather clever, perhaps over-drawn science fiction(for lack of another fitting category) about two young men who discover how to replicate any matter whatsoever. The two lads are assisted by gorgeous Barbara Payton and only one of the guys gets the girl. Soon the other pines for his lost love and tries sending live matter through the replicating devices with the express purpose of duplicating his lost love Lena. Hammer horror icon Terrance Fisher directs this early Hammer film with style albeit on a small scale with a very limited budget. The science of the film shouldn't be dwelled on too terribly long if you want to buy into the film, and it is the means to tell a story of a love triangle which soon has a fourth side - a four sided love triangle. The film has a lot of narration by James Hayter as a doctor that took in one of the men as a boy. Hayter adds some much needed credibility to the film and is a voice of reason - to a degree - and compassion. The implications of the new technology are only superficially explored and soon you see the plot turning into yet another Frankenstein -type film with man destined to try and become God and create life. What makes this film work is Fisher's low-key direction and simple yet sturdy performances by all concerned. Payton is very lovely as well. While certainly not in the ranks of great Hammer films or great Fisher films, Four Sided Triangle is thought-provoking, engaging, and predictable.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Hammer's First Sci-Fi Outing A Winner, 10 December 2007

Author: ferbs54 from United States

Now here's a film that should appeal to anyone who's ever found him/herself in the unwanted third of a classic love triangle. What to do if you're that unfortunate third wheel? Well, if you're Dr. Leggat, in "Four Sided Triangle" (1953), and you've just perfected your revolutionary duplicating device, you put your gal in it, make yourself a knockoff copy and hope for the best. But things go a tad awry in this very clever tale... I've gotta tell you, I really did enjoy this movie. With its small cast of characters, beautiful B&W photography, imaginative camera angles and laboratory setting, it almost suggested a British variant of an old "Outer Limits" episode. But this is in truth a Hammer film--their first sci-fi outing--and directed wonderfully by Terence Fisher, who would go on to many more successes for this legendary studio. The film is very well written--almost, dare I say it, literately written--extremely well acted and tightly scripted. Yes, it was cheaply made, but somehow everything still looks fine, particularly the impressive lab equipment, and the DVD here is as crisp and clean looking as can be. This cautionary tale on cloning turns out to be a real little gem, and deserves a wide audience. The Maltin book inexplicably gives it a "BOMB" rating, but "DVD Delirium," another wonderful film guide, sings its praises. In this case, I think the Maltin book has got it all wrong. See for yourself...

---

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
"Possibly the only b-pic to have the courage of it's lunatic convictions.", 24 April 2005

Author: jamesraeburn2003 from Poole, Dorset

**CAUTION: HUGE SPOILERS** In a rural English community, two friends called Bill (STEPHEN MURRAY) and Robin (JOHN VAN EYSSEN) invent a 'reproducer', a piece of scientific equipment which can recreate any object. They are aided in their work by Dr Harvey (JAMES HAYTER), the local GP and a close friend of theirs since they were children. During the celebrations of their fantastic discovery, Robin announces that he is to marry Lena (BARBARA PAYTON), a beautiful woman who both friends have fancied since they were children. Devastated, Bill decides to use the reproducer to create a clone of Lena for himself. However, as the clone is an exact replica, she shares the same thoughts and feelings as the real Lena.

FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE is an absurd but nevertheless enjoyable science-fiction melodrama. Along with STOLEN FACE (see my review), it is one of the very few films from this chapter in the history of Hammer and Terence Fisher to indicate the direction that the company would take when they became Britain's best horror studio. Both pictures share the same theme of a well to do man perverting his skills in order to win the affections of the woman he loves. For example, in STOLEN FACE, Dr Philip Ritter used his knowledge of plastic surgery to recreate the face of concert pianist Alice Brent on a deformed petty criminal because he couldn't marry Alice because she was already spoken for. The very same reason why Bill in FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE felt compelled to use his scientific invention to duplicate Lena. Also both Dr Ritter and Bill were so obsessed in their love for women that they were both unable to see that disastrous consequences could result. Both characters from these two early movies are comparable to Baron Frankenstein in Fisher's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Even though Frankentein was more concerned with bringing the dead back to life than with his love life, he also was too oblivious to the certain doom that faced him when his creature became a criminal lunatic and he intended his creature to be perfect very much as Bill and Ritter intended theirs to be. FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE must also be the only b-picture in cinema history to have the courage of it's own lunatic convictions. This is thanks largely to Terence Fisher who opts to emphasize the causes and consequences of the characters' actions and the moral outcome as well. For instance at the end of the film the screen is filled with a biblical quote "You can either have joy or power you shall not have both". This follows the climax where Bill and one of the Lena's perish in a fire. However, one of them survived and the only way to judge between the clone and the real Lena was by a scar on the back of the latter's neck. Robin is overjoyed when its the real Lena, his wife, who has survived. This is the significance of Fisher's biblical quote. Robin had been tempted by power, but once the machine was destroyed in the blaze, his one opportunity for power was lost but he still had his wife and therefore he had joy but not power. This very much sets the standards for Fisher's skill as a director, whereas most of his films from this period such as MASK OF DUST or SPACEWAYS have nothing to commend them at all. In his best films for Hammer, he had that ability to take a ridiculous storyline and give it conviction by placing attention solely on his characters and the consequences and morality of what could happen if such things did occur in the world. The cast sensibly play it straight and all are suited to their roles with James Hayter shining as Dr Harvey who aids the men in their experiments but at the same time warns them of the dangers they face. John Van Eyssen who was later the head of Columbia Pictures would appear as Jonathan Harker in Fisher's classic Dracula (1958).

---

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Something for nothing, and your women for free., 19 December 2000
Author: curly-17 from United States

Bill and Robin are scientists, and rivals for the affection of Lena (played by Barbara Payton-- being the love interest of two men is basically the same role she played in "Bride of the Gorilla"- 1951). It's amazing what two scientists can do, in a barn they bought and converted into a workshop, and with only £2,000 for research funds. They create a machine called a "Duplicator," a.k.a. a "Reproducer," with 2 identical pods, (much like would be used in "The Fly"- 1958). This can "convert energy into matter" (more on that next paragraph). At first they make an exact replica of a watch, then another small object. The plot thickens: Robin marries Lena. Even though Bill could create copies of anything in the world-- gold, rubies, rare drugs, radium-- Bill only wants to create another Lena. The Duplicator has only worked on inanimate objects; Bill modifies it so it can make perfect duplicates of small animals. Oddly enough, Lena agrees to be duplicated. So now we have Lena, and her duplicate Helen. But, since Helen is a perfect copy, she too is in love with Robin! What will the lovesick Bill do now? A hokey, no-budget movie, typical of 1950s flicks with pseudo-science and trite plots. It's curious that even though inventor Bill can be a genius at science, he is a knucklehead at love.

The theme of this movie reminds me of lyrics to the song "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits-- "Money for nothin' and your chicks for free." The Duplicator seems to create things: effortlessly, cost-free, and out of thin air, sort of like Barbara Eden did in "I Dream of Jeannie." Oh, they say that the matter "is created from energy." According to Einstein's equation, "E equals m c-squared" you can convert matter into energy (a lot of energy). In an atomic explosion, about one gram of matter (Uranium-235) will turn into the energy of 18-kilotons of TNT. This works both ways. You could theoretically convert energy into matter-- but then, it would take the energy of an 18-kiloton atomic bomb to produce one gram of matter! So it would take about the energy of 450 atomic bombs to create one pound of matter. Since Helen weighs over 100 pounds, you would need the energy of 45,000 atomic bombs to create that much matter. Wouldn't it be easier for Bill to try a dating service?

---

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Improbable, 24 May 2007

Author: keith-moyes from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is typical of low budget British SF movies of the early Fifties. On the one hand, it is competent, well acted and generally better-looking than American movies of its budget level (probably because a dollar bought more production values in England than in Hollywood). On the other hand, the story is half-baked and never knows what it is supposed to be about.

There are only a handful of genuinely original SF ideas, so the trick is to select one and give it a twist. The perfect duplicator is a commonplace of SF. In this movie, the twist is to use it to solve the problem of a romantic triangle: duplicate the woman and both men can get the girl.

This is a dubious idea, but does have its possibilities. However, the movie doesn't grasp them. The triangle is set up at the very beginning, when the two scientists (Robin and Bill) are children and both smitten with Lena. But the movie then spends the next 25 minutes on the invention of the duplicator. We get the usual scenes of desperate endeavour, failures and setbacks, loss of funding, new funding and eventual triumph.

The movie then raises some interesting issues about how the duplicator should be used and all sorts of plot possibilities spring to mind. They are all discarded because it is at this point that the romantic triangle comes to the fore. Lena chooses Robin and this leads Bill to conceive his crazy plan to duplicate her, so she can marry both of them. Although this seems one of the lamest of the plot options, I was willing to go along with it.

However, the movie then takes a further 25 minutes to get to the point of the actual duplication. This means that the real story is shoe-horned into the final 27 minutes of the movie. Even then, it is undermined by some astonishingly shoddy plotting.

Firstly, how can Bill bring his plan about? In a typical 'mad scientist' movie of the Thirties or Forties, his hunchbacked assistance would have kidnapped Lena and forced her through the duplication process. This would have been hackneyed, but serviceable. But British filmmakers of the Fifties were above such crude melodrama. Instead, Bill simply persuades Lena to go along with his lunatic idea. This is highly improbable in itself, but even more so because of its blindingly obvious flaw. The perfect duplicate (called Helen) will have all Lena's memories and feelings and will also be in love with Robin.

The idea of two identical women both in love with the same man (and not even knowing which of them is the original and which is the duplicate) raises another raft of possibilities which are not taken up. Instead, it takes a further 15 minutes before Helen reveals her feelings for Robin and the movie delivers the surprise plot twist that audiences had anticipated from the first moment Bill reveals his plan.

Bill is not fazed by this disappointment. He simply cooks up another gizmo that will suck out all Helen's memories and leave her free to form new attachments. Having taken years to develop the duplicator, this radical new device is ready in days (if from the start Helen had been physically identical to Lena, but devoid of all memories, yet another story possibility emerges. But I digress).

Helen, amazingly, agrees to this despite the fact that a complete loss of memory is tantamount to her death. Even more improbably, Lena agrees to assist in the procedure (is that girl helpful, or what?). It works, but in another lazy plot development the equipment catches fire and the laboratory burns down, killing Bill and one of the two women. But which one?

This little dilemma is hopelessly contrived and relies on two further improbabilities (how many more times will I have to use that word?). Not only must the two women be dressed identically, but the survivor has to lose her memory.

It is Lena that survives (the trauma of the fire gave her temporary amnesia - as it does). Whew!

There is no way of avoiding the fact that this is all a complete dog's breakfast!

Having savaged this poor little movie, I am now embarrassed to admit how much I enjoy it (it is Fifties SF, how could I not?). But I am frustrated. Four-sided Triangle could never have been a really good movie but if, at the very outset, the writer and producer had just spent a couple of hours brainstorming the story it could have been a hell of lot better than it is.

Damn, damn, damn!

---

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A Long 'Outer Limits' Episode, 27 July 2008

Author: John W Chance (Chance2000esl@yahoo.com) from San Francisco, California

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the first movie about cloning a person. It is adapted from William F. Temple's novel of 1949, which itself was an expansion of his short story 'The Four Sided Triangle' published in 1939! In this version, Dr. Bill Leggat, with the assistance of his childhood friends Robin and Lena, builds a 'reproducer,' a matter duplicator. Bill, however, has always been running second to Robin in Lena's affections, and when she marries Robin, he becomes distraught, and decides to 'reproduce' her. She finally agrees, since he promises her that the reproduced Lena will be wiped clean of any memories, and will start life anew. He then runs off with the cloned Lena, whom he calls Helen. Unfortunately for Bill, she does retain at least some of her original memories and love for Robin.

The critical dramatic theme, of course, is how the new Lena, Helen, deals with the fact of her existence. More of the movie should have been spent on this. The problems emerging from the self-awareness of the clone have been treated not only in Temple's story and novel, but also in John Varley's short story 'The Barbie Murders' (1978), Stanislaw Lem's amazing descriptions in his novel 'Fiasco' (1987), and Natalya Banderchuk's poignant performance as the constantly being recreated Hari in Tarkovsky's deviant but brilliant movie version of 'Solyaris' (1972) -- also written by Stanislaw Lem.

Here the dramatic burden falls on Barbara Payton as Lena/Helen, also to be seen in the split identity themed 'Bride of the Gorilla' (1951). She does a fair job of expressing her mixed feelings of being re-created, finally opting for an aborted suicide. An all consuming fire in Bill's barn / laboratory dooms Bill and Helen, though in the short story the reader is left puzzling whether it is Lena or Helen who survives.

This film is like a too long episode of 'The Outer Limits,' which would have neatly telescoped this 81 minutes into a fast moving 52, the way that the episode 'Specimen: Unknown' (1964) is a condensed version of 'Day of the Triffids' (1963); or 'The Man Who Was Never Born' (1963) shortens a multi-themed two hour movie into a quick one hour; or Harlan Ellison's episode 'Soldier' (1964) gives us 'The Terminator' (1984). Here the laboratory sequences of perfecting organic matter re-creation go on too long; the entire development of the 'reproducer' could have been shortened, although all of the lab scenes tell us this is really a science fiction movie with a strong character focus like the best of 'The Outer Limits.'

I'll give it a 5.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Thought provoking science fiction movie a preview of things to come from Hammer, 5 February 2008

Author: mlraymond from Durham NC

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Seeing this movie for the second time, I was struck by how clearly it anticipates Hammer's later Frankenstein films. The relationship of the two scientists, with one more eager than the other to pursue bolder experiments, the look of the laboratory, even specific camera angles of Bill at work, all foreshadow Curse of Frankensetin some four years later.

One can see Terence Fisher's style taking shape, though the complete Hammer atmosphere has yet to be established. A major aspect is the seriousness with which the storyline and characters are enacted. Fisher remarked once that when they were filming Curse of Frankenstein, it was tempting at first to do it almost tongue in cheek, but he realized that the more serious the approach, the better it would work in the long run. This film uses that same serious attitude to make the fantastic story seem plausible. The actors make their characters completely believable, no matter how outlandish the plot gets.

This is a minor but fascinating exercise in the development of the Hammer legacy, and well worth seeing for anyone interested in Fifties British science fiction.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Amusing early Hammer sci-fi, 10 November 2002

Author: funkyfry from Oakland CA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

********SPOILERS***********

Some suspense but mostly melodrama in this story of the "duplicator" -- a device which really lives up to its name! But -- watch out! -- 2 Barbara Paytons might not be better than one! Solid but acting below anyone's par. Not as good as "Quatermass" but a step in a good direction for Hammer. Why did B. Payton's character give that noir kind of speech and then turn out to be such an idiot? Just another example of screenwriters trying to have their cake and eat it too, I guess.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history