Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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.

Vornoff-3 This is probably the closest Roger Corman ever came to directing Shakespeare. It's a remake of a 1939 film that tells the story of Richard III, minus all the Shakespearean language. Corman added elements of Macbeth (and Hamlet?) to make it perhaps even a bit classier, but also so he could show lots of ghosts. Vincent Price, who played a drunken Clarence in the original, gets promoted to Richard for this version, and also gets a nasty hump on his back (the most pronounced of any version I've seen). It's good, solid costume drama, with extensive and creative use of torture chambers. Honestly, I somewhat prefer Richard as an unabashed villain, as portrayed by Ian McKellen, not as a tortured and haunted man, desperately trying to justify himself and flee his tormentors, but Price holds up well, and the photography and sets are memorable.

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.

Michael_Elliott Tower of London (1962) * 1/2 (out of 4) Vincent Price plays Richard III who murders his way to the throne but soon the ghosts of all he killed comes back to haunt him. I must admit that I didn't care too much for the 1939 version, which featured Karloff and Price but this one here is even worse. I think this is the worst film Corman and Price did together, which is a shame because there's a good movie here somewhere. There are a few nice scenes but overall I found everything to be quite bland and boring. Price is usually great in whatever he does but I found him to be rather bland here. The supporting performances weren't much better and in the end I can't help but feel this is a major misfire all around.