Tower of London (1962)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Excellent adaptation.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

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

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.

Like all films labeled "History" this does not mean the story is entirely true - there will be people who once lived and places in history that are real but it does not mean what you see on film is historically accurate. Hollywood will take the facts then ad-lib or fill in the blanks. Keeping this in mind I will rate this film like I do other "History" films - I will NOT base my rating on historical accuracy nor inaccuracy but purely Hollywood CINEMA entertainment! I like Vincent Price so I am admittedly biased - but I think his portrayal of King Richard III was good. In real life we really do not know all that much about Richard's personality - only from stories written by others who might have exaggerated, simply lied about him because they did not like him OR maybe they were fairly accurate stories. I think Price did the best he could with the information he knew about the real King Richard III - and not just Price but the writers and the rest of the cast/crew did their best as well to give us this movie. I found this movie to be a good dramatization.This film is NOT a remake of the 1939 film of the same name ("Tower of London"). The 1939 film stars Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone & Vincent Price. The 1962 film only borrows the title from the 1939 film. The two stories are completely different from each other. One final note: I think it's cool they found the REAL King Richard III's body - buried under a parking lot where he fell in battle many many years ago. Love him or hate him - it's nice his remains are found: for the sake of history and the "royal" family.8/10

Having seen the original 1939 and this Corman remake i have to say i liked the original better,but this one is more graphic and somewhat creepy.Richard the 3rd played by wickedly by the late great Vincent Price of the horror rat pack(Karloff,Lugosi,Lee,Carridine,Cushing)there's ghosts,torture,and murder as Richard the 3rd makes his way to the throne with the help of his henchman(Micheal Pate)many other Roger Corman regulars are on hand,its kind of funny that this was'nt made by American international pictures but united artists a bigger studio with more money to invest,too bad they did'nt invest in a color print.but it is none the less horrific and Mr Price is great in the role.heres some trivia Vincent Price was in the original 1939 as the duke of Clarence,Richards brother who um dies in a vat of wine.this film is shown on the this television network a lot,it was on the website called fancast but was taken off.it is a very well made film,one of Roger Cormans best from the 60's.and one of Vincent Price's as well 8 out of 10

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.