SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

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

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

krocheav 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.

TheLittleSongbird I was looking forward to Tower of London as I am a big fan of Vincent Price and a lot of his and Corman's collaborations. After seeing it, I don't think it is one of their best, and the 1939 film while not perfect is a better film, but it is a decent film and should be better known than it is. Granted it is nowhere near perfect, the ending is abrupt, some of the supernatural scenes are more silly than they are haunting and most of the supporting cast are very hammy. The history is also questionable, though I wasn't expecting a history lesson when watching Tower of London and I don't count it as as big a flaw as the ones above. However, the sets, costumes and photography are quite good, the score has a haunting quality to it and the dialogue is intelligent. The story has some uneven moments, but the murders are very disturbing and there is a good atmosphere about it. The killings of the princes and Richard's decision to kill Buckingham are the best scenes of the film. Corman's direction is generally solid and Robert Brown and Joan Freeman are good in their roles and handle them with professionalism. But Vincent Price is the best actor in the film, his Richard of Gloucester is superb, the only one of the cast to make me feel that way. While slightly on the camp side, and I do think he has given better performances before and since, he is also menacing and troubled. All in all, not one of Corman's best but worth the viewing for Price's performances and the murder scenes. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Witchfinder General 666 Roger Corman's "Tower of London" of 1962 is a great piece of Historical Horror and a fantastic depiction of madness, that has enriched the world of cinema with yet another magnificent performance by the incomparable Vincent Price. Vincent Price was in two films named "Tower of London" that dealt with the reign and villainy of Richard III, the other being Rowland V. Lee's great Historical Drama of 1939 in which, as a young actor, he played the supporting role of the Duke of Clarence alongside fellow icons Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff. Personally, I first saw this 1962 film by Corman several years before first watching the 1939 film. Though both films are great, I must say that I still prefer this one. Unlike the 1939 film, this film is an actual Horror film, which focuses strongly on the King's madness and Horror elements. The reasons why I prefer this film (which is officially a remake, but very different to the 1939 version), are the Horror elements and the unspeakably intense and creepy atmosphere, but mainly the incredible on-screen persona of Vincent Price, whom I would call my favorite actor of all-time. Basil Rathbone was great in the role of the villainous king, but Price is sublime. The character is way more insane in this film. The cold-blooded, calculating villain King Richard of the 1939 film has become an equally villainous and murderous, but incalculable madman, haunted by the victims of his bloody path to kingship.Director Corman and star Price are always a great combination, as proved by their other collaborations, the brilliant Edgar Allan Poe adaptations which mark the peak of both men's careers. Films such as "Pit and the Pendulum" (1961, also starring the wonderful Barbara Steele, my favorite actress of all-time), "The Haunted Palace" (1963, which is actually the adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft Story) of "The Masque of the Red Death" (1964) range among the greatest Horror films ever made. This is yet another magnificent collaboration of Price and Corman. Price gives a magnificent portrayal of madness and villainy in what is one of his most diabolical roles. The only film in which he plays an even more despicable character is Michael Reeves' 1968 masterpiece "Witchfinder General", and I would rate the role of Prince Prospero in Corman's own "Masque of the Red Death" on quite the same level of evilness as his role here. "Tower of London" has many macabre moments including several downright nasty torture scenes. As in all his Vincent Price films, Corman creates a genuinely creepy atmosphere, this being the only black-and-white film the two did together. Michael Pate plays the role of Richard's loyal and unscrupulous helper on his way to power, basically the role that the great Boris Karloff (another favorite actor of mine) played in the 1939 film. While Karloff played a cruel, but relatively simple-minded executioner loyal to his master Richard, the character 'Sir Ratcliffe' played by Pate is a devilishly cunning snake who isn't far behind Richard in devilish ingenuity. The settings are magnificent, and very similar to those in the 1939 film (though the photography is gloomier) it sometimes looks as if the same settings were used. Parts of the battle sequences from the 1939 film were edited into this one. Overall, this is an amazing film with another brilliant leading performance from the immortal Vincent Price. A must-see for all Horror fans!

MartinHafer 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.