I tend to agree. I like robotic limbs on bad guys, but they belong in more "fantasy-based" action films. Speaking of which, not to derail the topic, but in action movies set in contemporary times that have villains with functioning robotic limbs, does it bother anyone that the bad guy(s) don't make money off them?
Case in point, Zigesfeld in If Looks Could Kill. I already mentioned him, I believe. He works for the movie's main villain, Steranko, whose evil plan is to steal all of Europe's gold and mint his own coins (!). And yet, he has a henchman with a fully-functioning robotic hand, that was apparently invented and installed onto Zigesfeld within the span of but a few days (he loses his hand at the beginning of the movie, then later on he reappears and has the robotic one).
I know it's a cheesy spy movie but why doesn't Steranko patent this technology? He'd become the richest man on Earth overnight. The same applies to the original version of Toht and by extension the Nazis. Why only equip one amputee with a high-tech mechanized limb that doubles as a weapon??? Injured soldiers could be back on the front lines fighting the Allies in no time, with a weapon that can't be easily taken from them because it's attached to their bodies.
Seriously. Whenever writers add in these cyborg enhancements to their villains in movies set during time periods where such technology is either scarce or unheard-of, they fail to address the fact the bad guys could revolutionalize prosthetics and become filthy stinking rich.