La torre di Londra

I came across this movie by chance one night late on the tv. I checked the review in the tv guide and thought it would be an adaptation of one of my favourite plays by Shakespeare: Richard III. However, when I noticed that Roger Corman directed and the guide labelled this movie a horror movie I had mixed feelings. Corman turned the story of Richard Gloucester who "gets rid" of those who stand between him and the throne of England. Corman does that in accordance with the way the people are put away with in the Shakespearean play, but (of course) with greater detail. Plus, Corman focuses more on theoccult aspects - Richard haunted by the spirits of those he killed. However, during the whole movie it does not quite become clear whether those ghosts are real or just hallucinations of Richard's poor soul. Vincent Price - once again - gives a superb villain, very reminiscent of Boris Karloff (who I think played Richard, as well). A perfect movie for dark, chilly nights, with fog and storm outside, and a blanket to crouch underneath.

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

'Tower of London' is fictionalized historical horror film that accounts the rise and fall of King Richard III. The film itself is above average '60s horror stuff, but it is elevate by Vincent Price's sleazy and sinister portrayal of King Richard, fighting for the right to throne and battling his own growing madness. The fans of Price will definitely be pleased - one of the few actors who can look terrifying while being over the top hammy. With 'Tower of London' Roger Corman proved he can handle more Shakespearian stuff pretty well.

Not the greatest work from them both, Corman and Price, but still worthy enough that hour and twenty minutes doesn't feel wasted one bit.

23 years before when Universal Pictures made Tower Of London, Vincent Price was featured as the luckless Duke Of Clarence who was as legend has it drowned in a vat of Malmsey wine. In 1962 Price took center stage in this Roger Corman adaption of the Richard III story. No flowery Shakespearean dialog here, this is a prose adaption heavily influenced by Edgar Allan Poe.

Price plays Richard III as Shakespeare has sent him to us through history as an evil monster and child killer. The film follows along the lines of the adaption done by Universal in 1939 with Basil Rathbone as Richard.

Unlike the Rathbone version, the character of Richard's wife Anne Neville. Left out was Richard's own child and when they both died and he had no direct successor his fate was sealed. Anne Neville is played by Joan Camden and while he never murdered her, she too haunts him after she's gone.

Richard leaves quite a bloody trail on his way to power, but he's haunted by his victims, images of the beating tell tale heart like apparitions. They haunt him, but they sure don't deter him.

Price does a good job with Richard and his performance certainly rates behind Laurence Olivier in the Shakespearean adaption and also that of Rathbone. I'm surprised he never opted for the Shakespeare play as a project.

The team of Roger Corman and Vincent Price is undoubtedly most famous for the adaptations of Edgar Allen Poe's works, but it would be unwise to ignore this interpretation of William Shakespeare's play 'Richard III' as it's one of the duo's finest hours! This same story was brought to the screen 23 years earlier with the 1939 film of the same name (also featuring Vincent Price), but Corman's version, although obviously made on a limited budget is still a great version of the tale. The plot features prominent themes of envy, greed and insanity, and the story of one of England's most famous rulers is interesting for its own merits, and Corman's portrayal of it makes it interesting for fans of classic horror also. The plot begins with the death of the current king of England, Richard's brother. The throne is intended to go to the brother's son, but King Richard has other ideas as he begins to murder all those that stand in his path to the most coveted seat in the country. However, what he doesn't count on is his conscience getting in the way; and before long, he is being haunted by the ghosts of his victims.

Every film in the Corman's Poe Anthology is filmed in colour, but here Corman shoots on black and white film, and it does the story no end of favours as the atmosphere always feel thick and foreboding, and gorgeous shots of smoke filled locations help to increase the tension. The fact that the film stars the great Vincent Price is most definitely its strongest element. Price is best at playing villains and people suffering from mental torment, and here he gets to do both in the meaty role of King Richard III. Price's acting style certainly suits Shakespearian roles as he's never afraid to go over the top, and I'm sure Corman was always happy to capitalise on this fact as Price is allowed to let rip completely during many instances of the film. Price also manages to look sinister while he's being hammy, and just small things such as the little hat that Price wears give him an understated villainy that suits the role like a glove. The supernatural elements of the film are well utilised, and Corman is happy to capitalise on the horror aspects of the play at all times. The ending is a little abrupt, but overall, this film is a definite 'hit' and one that shouldn't be missed by Price, Corman and even Shakespeare fans!