The Four Sided Triangle

Rating:
Summary: You make me feel like a natur...er...replicated woman...
Review: From Terrance Fisher, director of such Hammer Studios classics as The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958), and The Mummy (1959) comes the less than stellar, but still enjoyable, film, The Four Sided Triangle (1953).

This British production stars American actress Barbara Payton as Lena, James Hayter as Dr. Harvey, Stephen Murray as Bill and John Van Essyen as Robin. Payton, a once promising actress with a bright future, passed at the early age of 40 due to a series of volatile relationships and alcohol abuse.

The movie starts off by showing Lena, Robin, and Bill as youngsters, living in a small English town. The three are the best of friends, with Bill coming from a well to do family and being the practical one, Robin in a much less desirable existence with an abusive father who, along with his mother, pass early in Robin's childhood, leaving him in the care of Dr. Harvey, or 'Doc', as most call him, and Lena sort of in the middle of the two boys.

Time passes, and the boys go off to college, and Lena is taken to America. The boys return from college, and begin working on a fabulous invention, with Robin being the true inspiration behind the project. Lena also arrives, not being unable to find her place or purpose in life and returning to her childhood village. The three begin to work together, with Robin and Bill working on their invention, and Lena acting in the fashion of caretaker for the absorbed young men. Finally, Robin and Bill unveil their invention, the reproducer, a machine that has the ability to perfectly copy anything. The machine is a success, and the practical applications are astounding, but Robin, of the purely scientific mind, has become bored and decides to take the notion to the next step by 'reproducing' a living organism, despite Bill's moral objections. This is when Robin's 'mad scientist' persona really comes into its' own.

After the success of the machine, Bill and Lena announce their engagement, much to the heartbreak of Robin, who secretly harbored love for Lena, but, while able to conjure up fantastical ideas and devices, always had difficultly relating to people and dealing with interpersonal contact. After finally perfecting the process of duplicating living organisms and keeping them alive, Robin decides if he can't have Lena, then he would try to create a duplicate of her. Does it work? Well, yes and no...

Obviously a take on the Frankenstein story, this film plays out pretty well, despite its' slow build up. I really enjoyed all the spinning, whirling, popping gadgets and the tense moments at certain points within the film. There seemed to be more melodrama in the film than I would have expected, but it did serve to add to the development of the characters. At certain points, Dr. Harvey, despite meek objections, is enlisted by Robin to assist in his experiments with duplicating living creatures. This seemed a bit out of character, as I thought he would want nothing to do with this kind of thing, but instead he goes along, helping Robin down this uncertain and dangerous path. I suppose he knew Robin would proceed with or without his help, so he gave in, but I didn't see the internal struggle within the doctor I thought I would have.

Not a bad movie, and I enjoyed the marrying of the Frankenstein concept with the cloning aspect, providing some really far out ideas for people to ponder back in the time it was released. The picture quality is very good, and special features include a Hammer featurette called 'The Curse of Frankenstein', which talks about the Frankenstein genre within the world of Hammer films. Also included inside the case is a nice reproduction card of some original promotion material for the Four Sided Triangle.

Cookieman108

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Concept - Stale Plot
Review: Not necessarily Hammer's finest production, Four-Sided Triangle is interesting for its central concept, but a stale plot makes for a mostly dated and anemic film. The writer couldn't seem to make up his mind whether he wanted to emphasize the Frankenstein elements or be cloying and sympathetic to the plight of the scientist. The indecision costs the film dearly, as we end up mostly being bored stiff. Still, it wins a few stars for being novel for the era. Hammer fans will find little here that connects to the classics, as this film was produced in 1953, well before even the earliest hit, The Quatermass Experiment in 1955. There was one other upshot though, it was directed by Terence Fisher.

Rating:
Summary: Early (unsuccessful) Terence Fisher flick.
Review: This film was made before Fisher found his stride in the later 50s with his classic versions of Frankenstein and Dracula. Hardcore Fisher fans might want to check it out; few others will be interested.

Rating:
Summary: Early (unsuccessful) Terence Fisher flick.
Review: This film was made before Fisher found his stride in the later 50s with his classic versions of Frankenstein and Dracula. Hardcore Fisher fans might want to check it out; few others will be interested.

Rating:
Summary: Worth a viewing for sci-fi fans...
Review: This is not really a horror picture, as you might naturally expect from the Hammer logo, and the synopsis on the back of the case. Any horror here is not visceral, and not even psychological. If anything, the horror (such as it is), is posed philosophically.

Actually a sci-fi effort, "The Four Sided Triangle" is a very good British black and white film from 1953. The production values are really pretty good, although the film was obviously made inexpensively. I liked the cast, location shooting, cinematography, and the basic overall story, which is in the best tradition of sci-fi short stories.

Two scientists create a new process to "reproduce" matter from energy (think of a cross between a photocopier and the replicators on "Star Trek"). Both scientists are in love with the same girl, and one is bound to lose when she finally chooses between them. However, the loser hits upon the idea of replicating the girl, so everyone can be happy and get what they want... at least on paper.

The gadget at the center of the tale, the "reproducer", is important but incidental. The device serves to facilitate the "what if?" quality of the story, making the normally impossible suddenly somehow possible. Scientific explanations of the device are not necessary, because the story is about how the characters react to the new problems their invention creates. In other words, the real story is between the characters, and unlike today's cineplex-infesting tripe, the focus is not on the special effects.

The film asks big questions that it never answers, and even then, it only asks them indirectly. Regardless, while the film is not completely successful, it does manage satisfy.

Rating:
Summary: Early Hammer disaster.
Review: Unfortunately, the script is irreconcilably one dimensional. Whilst some may claim this to be an interesting pre-curser of Fisher's later Hammer Frankensteins, it simply isn't - interesting that is. The notion of cloning may have been relatively unheard of then, but now it just seems ages old, and the approach in this film is certainly hackneyed. The script takes too long to build up to anything approaching unsettling, the actual reproducing machine (inspired title that one) sequences are incredibly long and boring, and the characterisation dangerously inept. Take, for instance, James Hayter's father figure doctor. Although expressing his strong abhorrence of Stephen Murray's ideas, he decides to help him out with an insouciant passivity that borders on the ludicrous. James Hayter's character is funny it has to be said... but only because he was written as the prehistoric stereotypical British stiff upper lip consummate professional, a person I'm not sure ever did exist. It's not Fisher's fault that the material's so bad - it would have taken a miracle worker to save this one.

As for the DVD, well the picture quality is as good as can be expected for a film of such age. In the area of extras however, one senses Anchor Bay were bored with the film themselves. No trailers or tv spots, no production notes, just the bog standard casually narrated hotch potch of clips that make up the feeble "world of Hammer" compilation show. The clips of Peter Cushing in the Frankenstein films are worth seeing though.