Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

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.

"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.