Four Sided Triangle (1953)

Truly Dreadful Film

Better Late Then Never

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

I viewed this as I was looking at titles with James Payton in them. This is a little gem that has a good story-line which leaves you wanting more. The basic premise is good and not too complicated. The main actors are strong and likable. You feel for the scientist as he tries to replicate the woman of his dreams.Do not expect scares more a complex situation. There are no great special effects it is more the dialogue than the actions which make this a great film.This is one of Hammer's better films.Barbara Payton is great in one of her final roles. There does seem to be chemistry between the actors and they grab your sympathy.

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.

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.

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.