hrkepler
'Tower of London' is fictionalized historical horror film that accounts the rise and fall of King Richard III. The film itself is above average '60s horror stuff, but it is elevate by Vincent Price's sleazy and sinister portrayal of King Richard, fighting for the right to throne and battling his own growing madness. The fans of Price will definitely be pleased - one of the few actors who can look terrifying while being over the top hammy. With 'Tower of London' Roger Corman proved he can handle more Shakespearian stuff pretty well.Not the greatest work from them both, Corman and Price, but still worthy enough that hour and twenty minutes doesn't feel wasted one bit.
Scott LeBrun
Sure, one shouldn't watch this looking to learn history lessons. Sure, it's not one of director Roger Cormans' better films. And yes, it's clear that Corman and his producer / brother Gene were working with a limited budget. But you just can't go wrong with Vincent Price at his theatrical, Shakespearean best. The film is thick with atmosphere, and the madness in the air of this thing provides the story with a lot of potency. This thing is FUN, damn it, and it merits a look.This is a remake of the 1939 film that also told the tale of the evil and conniving Richard of Gloucester. Price, who played the Duke of Clarence in "Tower of London" '39, here stars as Richard, a monster who contrives his way to the position of King of England. However, his misdeeds will not go unnoticed - various subjects plot to put a monkey wrench in his plans - or unpunished. Those people that Richard tortures or murders reappear as spirits that taunt him mercilessly.Price is ably supported by a fine bunch of actors: Michael Pate as his loyal henchman, lovely Joan Freeman as Lady Margaret, Robert Brown as the strapping Sir Justin, Bruce Gordon as the Earl of Buckingham, Joan Camden as Richards' Lady Macbeth-like wife, Richard Hale as Tyrus the physician, sexy Sandra Knight as Mistress Shore, and Charles Macaulay as Clarence. But make no mistake: this is his show. He dominates "Tower of London" with true ferocity. Richard is a compelling variety of antagonist.The ending falls short of being very satisfying, but up until then this historical drama / horror film shows its viewers a rollicking good time.Seven out of 10.
rixrex
Not anywhere nearly as well done as the 1939 version, this Corman/Price vehicle has to be the weakest of their collaborations.Price is generally too hammy here, not well-directed as in other Corman films, and definitely nowhere near his excellent performance in Witchfinder General. Sets are pretty much bare-bones, effects and battle scenes look like stock footage superimposed over characters acting out in front of a black curtain.The murder of the two young heirs to the throne of England is the best scene and very effective, however. The end of this film of a mere 79 mins. is very welcome to the viewer as about 70 mins. of it are practically a complete bore. Pretty much one to forget unless you have to collect every Corman/Price film ever made.
wes-connors
Vincent Price fails to illuminate Richard III - possibly this is due to the direction of Roger Corman, and the resources available to the filmmakers. It's interesting to watch Mr. Price and the others attempt this odd version of Shakespeare; if you're not a fan of either, you probably won't enjoy this "Tower of London". Mr. Price as Richard kills many in his quest for the throne. Some of the deaths are (suggestively) quite disturbing, but the victims' "ghosts" are incredibly silly-looking. They act silly, too. The hero and heroine are played by Robert Brown and Joan Freeman. Their characterizations are okay; they seemed to know what their roles are and what kind of movie they are performing in, unlike some others in the cast. *** Tower of London (10/24/62) Roger Corman ~ Vincent Price, Robert Brown, Joan Freeman
AD
