Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

tomgillespie2002 Tower of London represented the first time Roger Corman and star Vincent Price had worked outside of the American International Pictures studio, and likely soon regretted the decision shortly into the shooting process. Producer Edward Small had approached Corman with the idea of making a film based on Richard III, and the thought of tackling Shakespeare clearly appealed to the B-movie auteur. Knowing that audiences were tiring of his still-popular Edgar Allen Poe cycle, Corman could stick to his Gothic, cobweb-laden style, only this time under the guise of the Bard. Tensions began to simmer almost straight away, as Small only informed Corman that the film would be shot in black-and-white days before filming was to commence. Price had a legion of fans anyway, but the box-office receipts quickly started to dwindle as word-of-mouth got around that the film was not in colour.The result is a mixed bag. Part a loose adaptation of Shakespeare's Richard III and part remake of Rowland V. Lee's superior 1939 effort of the same name, Tower of London still has plenty to offer to fans of these low-budget spook stories, and Price has so much fun that his performance would be more digestible if served with mayonnaise and bread. He plays the sneering, hunchbacked eldest brother of the dying King Edward IV (Justice Watson), and is shocked and angered when his younger brother George, the Duke of Clarence (Charles Macaulay), is named Protector of the Realm instead of him. It isn't long before George finds himself in a vat of wine with a knife in his back, and Richard sets about turning family against family in his bloodthirsty quest for the throne. Price actually played the Duke of Clarence in Lee's previous film, and it almost feels like Price takes great pleasure in stealing the lead role and disposing of his replacement.Although Corman was working away from home, the aesthetic is certainly recognisable. The sets are small but detailed, but there aren't many of them. Price schemes and snarls in only a handful of locations, but Corman counteracts this by focusing more on the supernatural elements. The ghosts of those Richard kills frequently haunt him, driving him to a paranoid madness that results in the death of his beloved wife. Price goes way over-the-top in these moments, even for an actor who was well-known for delighting in ham, but watching him engulf the screen never gets old. The budget restrictions set in place by Small were even too much for Corman, and he insisted their three-picture contract be torn up after the film was released. The result is a laughable climax that has ended before you even realise it has begun, and the great Battle of Bosworth Field is reduced to a few silly close-ups and re-used stock footage from the 1939 version. It doesn't demand much at 79 minutes, but Tower of London feels limp and hurried when compared to the lushness of Corman and Price's Poe adaptations.

gavin6942 Richard wants to be king, but when his brother dies that cannot happen without the death of his nephews. Well, you know, if all that stands between you and the throne of England is two murders, that's a small hurdle to cross for a sadistic madman.This is a remake of the 1939 film of the same name, though the horror factor is upped here thanks to director Roger Corman. Ivan Butler calls it "libelliously unhistorical", but assuming we all know this is not a documentary, it is pretty sweet. Vincent Price as a hunchback with a murderous hand? Oh, good stuff!While certainly not Corman and Price's best work together (see, of course, the Poe films), it's a little-watched piece that deserves more credit.

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.

heisalexh Vincent Price gives one of his best performances as Richard the third, who kills his enemies in front of him to the throne. Price is extremely evil in this movie making him an unlikable villain. But Price does die, and does he ever, but not before he goes on a killing spree.This version is actually superior to the 1939 version (that Price was also in), despite it's stature as a B-movie. Roger Corman directs and scores yet again along with his other stuff from the early sixties.I bought the Midnite Movies release of this and The Haunted Palace, and this turned out even better than HP. I say buy it(for cheap). then, you can even watch it.