Tower of London (1962)

Strong and Moving!

Overrated

The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

At first, thought this was going to be better than average for a cheap Roger Corman movie but alas, was wrong on all counts. Corman's direction of his cast seems lacking as they walk through their limp characterizations looking like they're waiting for the next coffee break. Vincent Price has never been more unconvincing as he outrageously over acts in stock hammy style. The Corman Bros were in their element with this nasty ultra low budget foolishness. Unless you like boringly bad movies give this a wide burst! The remastering of this DVD looks good but is wasted on this very weak movie.

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.

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.

King Richard III of England is a very tough guy to understand today because the truth about him is hopelessly muddled. Most of what we THINK is true about him comes from Shakespeare's Richard III--which is very entertaining but Skakespeare was probably no better a historian than Paris Hilton! His histories are based on both traditional tales AND an effort to make the Tudor dynasty look good (after all, Elizabeth was queen while many of his plays were produced and if they were critical of her family, he would have likely been beheaded). So, considering that Richard III was murdered by her grandfather (Henry VII), it's not surprising that in the play he's a scheming and deformed jerk. This film also is based somewhat on Shakespeare's tradition, though he's far crazier. Whether Richard actually killed his nephews, walked like a hunchback or was so untrustworthy and stupid is up for debate--and many historians do question the traditional view of the king.Now, if you aren't a history teacher or a member of the Richard III Society (www.richardiii.net), most of this probably won't matter very much to you. My advice is to just watch the film for it's entertainment value--not historical.As entertainment, it's not bad. Fans of Vincent Price will especially enjoy his way over the top and highly emotional re telling of the reign of Richard. Seeing his face contort and ghosts popping in and out certainly is fun to watch, as is the nasty scene involving dropping a rat in a cage on a man's face! Obviously, this is NOT a Merchant-Ivory production!! No, in many ways it's highly reminiscent of director Roger Corman's other forays with Price (such as his Poe "inspired" films). And so, if you like them, you'll love this homage to insanity and evil. If you are looking for something more...well, you won't find it.