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...
47 Reviews
Interesting early Hammer sci-fi
chris_gaskin12330 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
A Real Body Double
BaronBl00d17 April 2006
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.
Guy loses girl...twice!
Sterno-222 February 2001
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.
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.
Thought provoking science fiction movie a preview of things to come from Hammer
mlraymond5 February 2008
Warning: 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.
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.
A Long 'Outer Limits' Episode
Chance2000esl27 July 2008
Warning: 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.
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.
Lena Or Helen
bkoganbing28 March 2012
Years after it first came out in the United Kingdom I remember seeing Four Sided Triangle on a double bill in America. It was one of those films I never forgot. I didn't know at the time it came from the celebrated British company Hammer Pictures which gave us usually a more gory type of science fiction.
When cloning was finally achieved I remember that this was the first film I remember discussing the possibility which was fact in this film. For all the science fiction involved at heart Four Sided Triangle is a romantic and tragic film which begins in childhood of the protagonists.
Children who grow up to be Barbara Payton, John Van Eyssen, and Stephen Murray are seen and its plain early on that Murray will be the odd man out in this group. Payton is the object of their affections, Van Eyssen is the son of the local squire and Murray the abused son of the town drunk. Fortunately for him the town doctor James Hayter takes an interest in Murray and Hayter narrates the film in flashback and it is through his eyes we see what unfolds.
Both Van Eyssen and Murray go to college and study science and they perfect a 'duplicating' machine that can just duplicate inanimate things out of air. Good possibilities there. But Murray who pines for Payton wants to go further. She's married Van Eyssen, no fool she as he's got money and position. But Murray with the help of a reluctant Hayter experiments on living matter and then goes for the ultimate experiment. Amazingly enough Payton agrees to be duplicated.
I can't go any further, but I'm sure your mind boggles with all kinds of alternative endings. The two Paytons are named Lena and Helen and I will say there is something that Murray forgot in all his experimentation.
Four Sided Triangle while done on the cheap is a sensitively made film with good performances from the cast and will make you think about the issues of cloning.
When cloning was finally achieved I remember that this was the first film I remember discussing the possibility which was fact in this film. For all the science fiction involved at heart Four Sided Triangle is a romantic and tragic film which begins in childhood of the protagonists.
Children who grow up to be Barbara Payton, John Van Eyssen, and Stephen Murray are seen and its plain early on that Murray will be the odd man out in this group. Payton is the object of their affections, Van Eyssen is the son of the local squire and Murray the abused son of the town drunk. Fortunately for him the town doctor James Hayter takes an interest in Murray and Hayter narrates the film in flashback and it is through his eyes we see what unfolds.
Both Van Eyssen and Murray go to college and study science and they perfect a 'duplicating' machine that can just duplicate inanimate things out of air. Good possibilities there. But Murray who pines for Payton wants to go further. She's married Van Eyssen, no fool she as he's got money and position. But Murray with the help of a reluctant Hayter experiments on living matter and then goes for the ultimate experiment. Amazingly enough Payton agrees to be duplicated.
I can't go any further, but I'm sure your mind boggles with all kinds of alternative endings. The two Paytons are named Lena and Helen and I will say there is something that Murray forgot in all his experimentation.
Four Sided Triangle while done on the cheap is a sensitively made film with good performances from the cast and will make you think about the issues of cloning.
Something for nothing, and your women for free.
curly-1719 December 2000
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?
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?
Improbable
keith-moyes24 May 2007
Warning: 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!
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!
Amusing early Hammer sci-fi
funkyfry10 November 2002
Warning: 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.
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.
Hard to Fathom
Hitchcoc27 January 2018
This is one of those movies that defy pure sense. When a trio of kids become close, they maintain their connection through adulthood. There is an attractive young woman and two men who love her. Unfortunately, only one can have her. But the two men have followed separate paths, become brilliant scientists, inventing a machine that can duplicate any form of matter. After selling out to the government (who will probably create atom bombs) it is announced that Lena, the young woman has chosen to marry one of the men. The other carries a torch for her and decides to do the logical thing. He talks Lena into going through the machine and creating her clone (called Helen). The kicker is the fact that the machine creates exact duplicates. We know there is doom written all over this thing. What you don't want to do is think too much. Anyway, the premise makes it quite watchable. The acting is very good and the setup is creative. I did enjoy the lab. Lots of unexplainable machines and flasks full of boiling water. There is no attempt at an explanation.
"Possibly the only b-pic to have the courage of it's lunatic convictions."
jamesraeburn200324 April 2005
**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).
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).
Small film about the things we love
dbborroughs8 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Good science fiction film operates as the best science fiction films do, as stories that reflect other subjects. Here its all matters of the heart and what can we do to get our hearts desire. The plot is simple, a heart broken scientist uses a duplicating machine to make a copy of the girl he loves. The trouble is its an exact copy. How that all plays out is the film and its a fine one at that.(a side note some of the themes show up in Andrei Tarkovsky's classic Solaris) This is an early film from Hammer Studios and I've never really been sure why the film isn't better known. Perhaps because its such an early film that no one noticed or perhaps its because its a black and white film and when we think of Hammer we generally think of the color Dracula and Frankenstein films of the 50's and 60's. you really need to see this film because its a neat little story. Its just a finely crafted small scale film.
Cloning Drama.
AaronCapenBanner20 November 2013
Early film from Hammer studios is a science fiction yarn about two lifelong friends named Bill & Robin(Stephen Murray & John Van Eyssen) who are in love with the same girl named Lena(played by Barbara Payton) Eventually, Lena chooses Robin, leaving Bill devastated, but as a scientist, he has invented a cloning device that duplicates matter, so creates a new Lena for himself, named Helen. Unfortunately, Helen also loves Robin(!) so frustrated and angry, Bill goes to extreme lengths to rectify this... Good premise, with much potential, but largely goes unrealized in dull and melodramatic film that turns into pure soap opera. Terence Fisher directed, but would go on to better films.
#2 Four Sided Triangle
jamstubell9 January 2018
I would never have bought this early Hammer film but as it was included as a special feature on "The Curse Of Frankenstein" Blu Ray I thought I would give it a watch. The sci fi elements to the plot made it bearable but I thought the main cast were rather bland and uninteresting. I really didn't care about the characters or the love triangle that soon gains a fourth side. For me Hammer really begins with "The Quatermass Experiment" so this film and the one I watched the other day ("Stolen Face") are nothing more than curios that I suppose act as a prologue to the iconic run of films that the studio was soon to produce. 3/10 - Bad.
Maybe it deserves a 7
ebeckstr-121 September 2021
Flawed but compelling semi-classic British 1950s sci-fi. Four-Sided Triangle (a clever title which perfectly conveys the story and themes - based on the novel of the same name) is known to aficionados, but has been largely and undeservedly forgotten by the larger cinephile culture. Like most British science fiction of that era it is idea and story driven rather than being driven by special effects. If the archetype of a scientist standing next to a tube into which a person steps sounds familiar, it's interesting to note that this movie predates The American film The Fly by three years. The flaws include missed opportunities (which I can't describe without giving away spoilers) and a pedestrian ending that takes no risks. Nonetheless, if you like British science fiction from that era Four-Sided Triangle is a must-see.
Had me remembering my school physics
howardmorley5 November 2017
I enjoyed seeing this 1952 film which was intelligently acted & directed.I had to remember my school physics where the Law of conservation of matter states that "Matter can be neither created nor destroyed but it can be converted into another form".I would like to have learnt a bit more about the physics of transponders in 1952 before cloning had been invented.Remember "Dolly" the sheep which hit the news headlines a few years ago?This was an enjoyable maiden effort by Hammer Films and I was glad I could see it (for the first time) at 71 years of age without other operators buying up the rights and expecting viewers to register via YT to see the film.I rated it 7/10.
Deservedly obscure early Hammer effort shows some potential but falls short
lemon_magic11 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I admit that there are some aspects of this film that are actually pretty good. The male actors are likable and charming (if maybe somewhat mannered and "stagey" in their performances). Barbara Payton is reasonably hot and is a much better actress than, say, Mamie Van Doren. Some of the photography and lighting and sets are really good. And the central plot idea has some resonance...who can't identify with the wish to recapture the love that got away?
Unfortunately, the screenplay's structure is a mess (beware of any film that opens up with this kind of portentous narration). And it also requires that the characters act like morons. You can get away with characters this dense and unreflective if you are doing a satire. Robert Sheckley or R.A. Lafferty would have done wonderful things with this material. But "4ST" plays things completely straight...and takes 20 minutes too long to get to the good parts.
I think this is one of those cases where the material just got away from the director and wouldn't pull together no matter what they did in editing and post-production. Or maybe the director (who went on to do many of Hammer's best regarded films) just needed a lurid horror element in his films to distract the audience from his weaknesses with more straight forward dramatic material. It may be that once he had Dracula to play with, he was working with material more suited to his strengths as a director.
I gave this one an extra star because I am sure that audiences back then (with 50 years less movie watching backlog) probably enjoyed this more than I did, and it is too well made to be ranked with 3 star-and-below AIP and Roger Corman dumps from the same era. After all, even mediocre British movies of that period have a certain dignity and craftsmanship that exploitation and genre directors could never hope to get.
Unfortunately, the screenplay's structure is a mess (beware of any film that opens up with this kind of portentous narration). And it also requires that the characters act like morons. You can get away with characters this dense and unreflective if you are doing a satire. Robert Sheckley or R.A. Lafferty would have done wonderful things with this material. But "4ST" plays things completely straight...and takes 20 minutes too long to get to the good parts.
I think this is one of those cases where the material just got away from the director and wouldn't pull together no matter what they did in editing and post-production. Or maybe the director (who went on to do many of Hammer's best regarded films) just needed a lurid horror element in his films to distract the audience from his weaknesses with more straight forward dramatic material. It may be that once he had Dracula to play with, he was working with material more suited to his strengths as a director.
I gave this one an extra star because I am sure that audiences back then (with 50 years less movie watching backlog) probably enjoyed this more than I did, and it is too well made to be ranked with 3 star-and-below AIP and Roger Corman dumps from the same era. After all, even mediocre British movies of that period have a certain dignity and craftsmanship that exploitation and genre directors could never hope to get.
Early Hammer sci-fi effort
Red-Barracuda18 April 2022
Early Hammer film before they hit upon the idea that horror was the way of the future. This one is a sci-fi effort about two young scientific geniuses who invent a duplicating machine; they both are in love with the same girl but she is in love with just one of them, so the other lovesick boffin asks her if he could make a duplicate of her. That'll save the day and make everybody happy, right? Wrong! This love triangle plus duplicate is the four sided triangle of the title. I suppose the sci-fi is more of a maguffin that allows the story to explore human emotional elements. Its not a bad effort really.
Weak, predictable attempt at a 'science-fiction romance'
jamesrupert201420 June 2020
Bill and Robin (Stephen Murray, John Van Eyssen), two British boffins in love with the same girl (Lena, Barbara Payton), invent a duplicating machine with predictable romantic consequences. Despite the impressive 'laboratory' sets, the 'science' in this fiction is negligible. No attempt is made to explain the duplicator (i.e. where does the 'raw' material come from?) beyond throwing around some random 'sciency-words' and names of famous physicists, and the final gadget, a convenient 'memory eraser',' is completely fanciful (and enters the story out of nowhere). Both machines exist solely to buttress the limping romantic plot and just as easily could have been magical. The logical flaw in lovelorn Bill's doppelganger-plan is so painfully obvious to the audience and, even if Bill is so far gone as to not think clearly, should have been equally obvious to his steady and rational mentor Dr. Harvey (James Hayter), that the whole second half of the film rings false. All of the characters are flat and contrived (especially Payton, whose tragic life-story is far more interesting than her acting), the 'young' male leads are a decade too old for the part, and Hayter bounces back and forth between a village-doctor who needs science explained in easy terms to a physician who's expertise in spinal surgery is key to keeping duplicated animals alive (there seems to be no relationship between the structure of the gadget Bill concocts to revivify the doubles and what he explains it does). The ending is a complete letdown, as typical of a Hammer Film Production film, the entire lab (inexplicably) goes up in flames (no spoiler here, the film opens with an introduction by Dr. Harvey in front of the gutted remains), abruptly ending the story before anything interesting actually happens. Directed by future horror-helmsman Terrence Fisher, the film looks great but the predictable story-line, completely unrealistic behaviour of the characters (remember: they have just invented a machine that can instantly duplicate anything 'out of thin air'!), and the preposterous 'rom-sci-fi' premise fatally undermines the value of the above-average production values. Watchable only for its novelty as a 1950's 'science-fiction romance'' or as an early Hammer/Fisher opus.
Frankenstein Created Woman
richardchatten29 March 2022
One of Hammer's earliest exercises in sci-fi was this charmingly dated cross between 'Alraune' and 'The Fly', complete with a Malcolm Arnold score.
It serves to showcase strapping Hollywood Platinum blonde Barbara Payton (already with form in bringing out the worst in men when Tom Neal broke Franchot Tone's nose in a brawl over her); while here Stephen Murray shows that he understands more about science than about women by not anticipating that creating a second Miss Payton will create far more problems than he thinks it will solve.
The ending is a doozy.
It serves to showcase strapping Hollywood Platinum blonde Barbara Payton (already with form in bringing out the worst in men when Tom Neal broke Franchot Tone's nose in a brawl over her); while here Stephen Murray shows that he understands more about science than about women by not anticipating that creating a second Miss Payton will create far more problems than he thinks it will solve.
The ending is a doozy.
How not to make a science fiction film
dafrieze1 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Four Sided Triangle" manages to do almost everything wrong. The story had possibilities: two childhood friends who have created a replicating machine fall in love with the same woman; she marries the first; the second decides to duplicate her, forgetting that the duplicate will have the same feelings as the original. It's a fairly simple story, and one that could have been handled nicely in a half-hour segment of "Twilight Zone." Here the writer and director managed to pad it out to 80 tedious minutes, beginning with a completely irrelevant description of the village in which the film takes place (sure, it seems a lovely village, but it plays absolutely no part in the plot, and after the first few minutes of travelogue, the film may just as well be taking place in New Jersey). The doctor (played inertly by James Hayter) is given a lot of narration, much of which is punctuated by platitudinous quotations from poetry. We watch the two scientists raise the money for the machine; we watch them gazing intensely at bubbling test tubes; we watch as they and the woman manipulate the machine, trying to drum up some suspense as to whether it will really duplicate the doctor's watch or not. It goes on forever. The story itself, apart from the cheesy window-dressing, doesn't begin until about the film is half over. The acting gets stagier, the pace gets choppier, the script gets clumsier. The scenes of the village at the beginning are nicely photographed. Otherwise, not one of Hammer's better offerings.
Exceptional and fascinating...and not a Frankenstein film!
planktonrules12 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I watched a DVD extra included with the film FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN. It was entitled "The World of Hammer: The Curse of Frankenstein (#1.10)" and I was surprised to hear that before the Peter Cushing Frankenstein films were made, Hammer had actually made another Frankenstein film (FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE). However, after seeing this film, I can say that this 1994 TV program was way overstating things! While the film did precede the Cushing films and it was directed and co-written by Terence Fisher, it most certainly was NOT a Frankenstein film. While there were a few minor similarities, that is all. Actually, I am glad it isn't one of these films, as FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE is a good film in and of itself.
The film is told in an interesting manner through narration and flashbacks by one of the minor characters--the guardian of the man who creates a woman later in the film. What is really unusual is that at the beginning, this narrator actually addresses the camera like he's talking to us directly. He reminisces about three children he knew years ago. As they grew, he took great interest in them. And, when one was left an orphan, he took him in and raised him.
Most of the story is about the period in the three lives when they are adults. The two men (Robin and Bill) have just returned from Cambridge where they worked on scientific degrees. The girl (Lena) was their childhood chum and she just returned to the UK. The three work together on some strange experiments--experiments that could duplicate matter! When they finally get it to work, they can duplicate watches, gold, anything! However, while this should be a very happy time for Bill, it isn't because at the time the experiment is unveiled, Robin and Lena announce they are going to be married--leaving the smitten Bill out of luck.
Here is where a passing similarity to Frankenstein comes into it. Bill works feverishly with the machine to make it possible to duplicate living things. At first, it is a failure. But, when he's able to perfect the device, he asks Lena if she will allow herself to be copied--thereby allowing him to marry a duplicate Lena and everyone will live happily ever after. Unfortunately, things don't work out as planned and you'll have to tune in to see for yourself. However, understand that it is NOT a horror film but more a film about ethics and romance.
Overall, a truly fascinating tale that is improved by great acting, writing and direction. This film is very well made and is frankly better than most of Hammer's films, so comparing it to the Frankenstein franchise does it a bit of a disservice.
By the way, the documentary I mentioned above is included on the DVD as well as in FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN. I can't see why they included this inaccurate TV show with FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE.
The film is told in an interesting manner through narration and flashbacks by one of the minor characters--the guardian of the man who creates a woman later in the film. What is really unusual is that at the beginning, this narrator actually addresses the camera like he's talking to us directly. He reminisces about three children he knew years ago. As they grew, he took great interest in them. And, when one was left an orphan, he took him in and raised him.
Most of the story is about the period in the three lives when they are adults. The two men (Robin and Bill) have just returned from Cambridge where they worked on scientific degrees. The girl (Lena) was their childhood chum and she just returned to the UK. The three work together on some strange experiments--experiments that could duplicate matter! When they finally get it to work, they can duplicate watches, gold, anything! However, while this should be a very happy time for Bill, it isn't because at the time the experiment is unveiled, Robin and Lena announce they are going to be married--leaving the smitten Bill out of luck.
Here is where a passing similarity to Frankenstein comes into it. Bill works feverishly with the machine to make it possible to duplicate living things. At first, it is a failure. But, when he's able to perfect the device, he asks Lena if she will allow herself to be copied--thereby allowing him to marry a duplicate Lena and everyone will live happily ever after. Unfortunately, things don't work out as planned and you'll have to tune in to see for yourself. However, understand that it is NOT a horror film but more a film about ethics and romance.
Overall, a truly fascinating tale that is improved by great acting, writing and direction. This film is very well made and is frankly better than most of Hammer's films, so comparing it to the Frankenstein franchise does it a bit of a disservice.
By the way, the documentary I mentioned above is included on the DVD as well as in FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN. I can't see why they included this inaccurate TV show with FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE.
"He Dabbled in God's Domain"
robertguttman26 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
British sci-fi in which two scientific friends invent a device which can replicate any object perfectly. They also happen to be in love with the same bird, who chooses to marry the one who is the squire's son rather than the one who is the farmer's son. However, rather than pine away over his lost love, the resourceful young scientist decides to rectify the situation by utilizing their new invention to create a clone of the disputed bird. Astonishingly, when he explains his intention to her, she agrees to go along with it.
This is really pretty original material considering that the idea of cloning was still decades away. In addition, give it further marks for originality in that the heroine actually goes along with the plan willingly, rather than having to be forcibly abducted, as would have been the case in a Hollywood version. Unfortunately, the story gets bogged down a bit due to the fact that it's treated more as soap opera then science fiction.
This is really pretty original material considering that the idea of cloning was still decades away. In addition, give it further marks for originality in that the heroine actually goes along with the plan willingly, rather than having to be forcibly abducted, as would have been the case in a Hollywood version. Unfortunately, the story gets bogged down a bit due to the fact that it's treated more as soap opera then science fiction.
Proto Hammer Horror that loses its way
Leofwine_draca1 September 2015
FOUR SIDE TRIANGLE is an early science fiction film from Hammer Films, who later in the decade would become renowned for their full-blooded horror outings. The storyline is about a love triangle between two guys and the girl they both love; when she chooses one over the other, the spurned rival turns to cloning in order to bring his dreams to life.
The plot is an intriguing one and it's difficult to dislike a fine-looking Terence Fisher film, but it's safe to say that FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE is very much a lesser piece of work. The science fiction elements are kept to a minimum throughout, which is a pity because with the scientific paraphernalia this sometimes brings to mind FRANKENSTEIN themes - the whole 'playing God' scenario for instance. At other times the whole thing seems like a dry-run for THE FLY.
Sadly, this turns into nothing more than a stilted melodrama in which doomed romance and much hand-wringing are the order of the day. The cast are fine, but it's Paul Tabori's and Fisher's script that lets this one down; it consistently fails to hit the right notes, and feels dull as a result.
The plot is an intriguing one and it's difficult to dislike a fine-looking Terence Fisher film, but it's safe to say that FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE is very much a lesser piece of work. The science fiction elements are kept to a minimum throughout, which is a pity because with the scientific paraphernalia this sometimes brings to mind FRANKENSTEIN themes - the whole 'playing God' scenario for instance. At other times the whole thing seems like a dry-run for THE FLY.
Sadly, this turns into nothing more than a stilted melodrama in which doomed romance and much hand-wringing are the order of the day. The cast are fine, but it's Paul Tabori's and Fisher's script that lets this one down; it consistently fails to hit the right notes, and feels dull as a result.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
