Tower of London (1939)

Fresh and Exciting

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

In the 15th century Richard Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone), aided by his club-footed executioner Mord (Boris Karloff), eliminates those ahead of him in succession to the throne, then occupied by his brother King Edward IV of England.This film has suffered from being thought of as horror, probably because it has Vincent Price (in a very early role) and Boris Karloff. It is not horror. Some have taken to calling it "quasi-horror", which may be true, though exactly what that means is not clear so who is to say? Anyway, if you go in expecting horror, you will leave disappointed.As a historical drama, this is an exceptional film. If you do not know English royal history, the characters are more than a little confusing. But if you go in understanding the basic plot, it is a great tale of treachery and evil ambition. And, for the most part, a true story.

All in all, this oddball 90-minutes could be called a noir costume drama. The lighting is either dull gray, shadowy b&w, or plain foggy, all the way through. Of course, this befits a very dour tale based, it seems, on some historical fact. As the scheming Richard of Gloucester, the sharp-featured Rathbone is perfect. And by golly, nothing's going to stand in the way of his becoming a 15th century King of England, even if he has to step on half his family to get there. Of course, he's got reliable old clubfoot Mord (Karloff) to do the dirty work. And do it, he does.It's impressive how well Rathbone transitions here from the unscrupulous plotter to his later intellectual gumshoe Sherlock Holmes. There's been no one quite so compelling before or since. Then too, as Mord, the great Karloff makes better use of his massive frame than usual. With his bald head (though the skull cap seams sometimes show), he's an incomparable presence. Still, there's that fleeting moment where the murderous Mord contemplates the sleeping bodies of the two doomed princes and the cruelty of his work. It passes quickly but amounts to a telling touch. Then there's that memorable scene where the Duke of Clarence (Price) and Richard compete for most quaffed wine in royal history; that is, before Clarence gets to bathe in the vat permanently. Though I've never again heard of Malmsey kind of wine, that scene's stayed with me for years.In my little book, director Lee is underrated for his work here and in other costume epics he seems to have specialized in, e.g. Captain Kidd (1945). Nonetheless, the movie is flawed in certain respects, as other reviewers point out. There's a heckuva lot of characters that come and go, so you may need the proverbial scorecard. Plus, the royalty gets their finery to wear, but the bare-bones interiors look like the budget didn't cover set decoration. And I'm still wondering how combatants could tell friend from foe in those fog shrouded battle scenes that come across like cloudy nightmares.Anyhow, I know nothing about the historical accuracy of what's on screen. Nonetheless, the oddball results have stayed with me for near 6-decades. Thanks, Rathbone and Karloff, and especially a long-gone TV Late Show.

Basil Rathbone gives a sublimely wicked performance as the cunning and ruthless Richard, the Duke of Glouster, who bumps off various members of the royal family in order to become king. Richard is assisted in his vicious quest by cruel and loyal club-footed executioner Mord (a perfectly fearsome portrayal by a bald and hulking Boris Karloff). Director Rowland V. Lee, working from an engrossing script by Robert N. Lee, relates the complex and compelling plot full of betrayal and treachery at a steady pace, delivers a convincing and flavorsome evocation of the 15th century setting, and stages a few battle set pieces with real aplomb. Moreover, this movie does a potent job of showing the brutal extremes one will resort to acquire great power (Richard even has two little boys murdered!). The cast have a grand old time with the meaty material, with stand-out contributions from John Sutton as the dashing John Wyatt, Barbara O'Neil as the proud Queen Elyzabeth, Ian Hunter as the shrewd and hearty King Edward, Vincent Price as the cowardly and effeminate George, the Duke of Clarence (George's high stakes wine drinking stand-off with Richard rates as one of the film's definite highlights); Nan Grey as the lovely Alice Barton, Ernest Cossart as merry chimney sweeper Tom Clink, and Miles Mander as the feeble King Henry VI. George Robinson's sharp cinematography makes neat use of graceful fades and dissolves. Frank Skinner's lively and rousing score does the stirring trick. Well worth seeing.

Rowland V. Lee's "Tower of London" of 1939 is a tense, well-made and highly atmospheric Historical Drama starring three of Horror's all time-greats, Basil Rathbone (in the lead as the vicious King Richard III), Boris Karloff (as his loyal executioner), and the young Vincent Price (in the role of the Duke of Clarence). Even though the film is sometimes labeled a Horror film, it isn't really. Personally, I saw Roger Corman's 1962 remake, in which Vincent Price plays the leading role, several years before first watching this one. I'd probably say I still prefer Corman's version, due to the creepy atmosphere, the stronger focus on the 'Horror' elements and Richard's growing madness, and, mainly, due to Vincent Price's indescribable on-screen persona. It cannot really be said which is the 'better' film however. Though telling the story of the same King, the two versions do differ immensely in most aspects. They begin at a different stage in Richard's aspiration for power, and while Richard is depicted as an absolute madman by Vincent Price in Corman's 1962 film, the Richard played by Basil Rathbone in this film is merely a calculating, unscrupulous and extremely cold-blooded aspirator for kingship.Lee's "The Tower of London" begins within the reign of King Edward IV (Ian Hunter), the older brother of Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone). The unscrupulous, hunchbacked Richard longs to be King, and is willing to commit any murderous deed necessary to achieve his goal. He is assisted in his plans by his most loyal servant, the club-footed executioner and torturer Mord (Boris Karloff)... "Tower of London" is definitely a dark, gloomy film, and furthermore very explicitly violent for its time. Unlike Roger Corman's 1962 version it is not a Horror film, however, but a Historical Drama. The great Basil Rathbone is ingeniously sinister in his role, and Horror-deity Boris Karloff is incredible as the ghoulish executioner. Vincent Price's role of the Duke of Clarence is regrettably small, but he is brilliant in it, as always. A 28-year-old Price, who was not yet the Horror-icon he would become, gives a great foretaste of the brilliance to come. Most (though not all) of the supporting performances are good. The 'good guys', such as the hero played by John Sutton, are not too memorable, but, at least in my humble opinion, great villains are of far greater value for this kind of story anyway. Though it treats the eponymous King, "Tower of London" is not based on Willaim Shakespeare's play "Richard III". The film is greatly shot, the choreography is very good and the historical settings are incredible. Overall, "Tower of London" is an excellent film that shouldn't be missed by fans of classic cinema. Highly recommended!