Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

tomgillespie2002 Contrary to many an assumption, Tower of London is actually not a horror film, despite the dark and miserable English castle setting, the sight of Boris Karloff as club-footed executioner Mord, and the presence of Rowland V. Lee - a director perhaps best known for Son of Frankenstein (also released in 1939) - behind the camera. There's also the existence of Roger Corman's low-budget effort of the same name, which emphasised the horror and pushed genre legend Vincent Price (who also appears here in a smaller role) into the central role as the deformed, scheming Richard III. In fact, Lee's Tower of London is a historical drama, borrowing much from Shakespeare's Richard III but somewhat confusingly leaving out much of the detail.Edward IV (Ian Hunter) sits comfortably on the throne of England after defeating King Henry VI (Miles Mander) and imprisoning him in the Tower of London. The feeble-minded former king wears a paper crown and lives in the hope that his son will return from exile in France to reclaim his crown. Edward enjoys combat practice with his formidable and cunning brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone), while their soft, drunken younger brother the Duke of Clarence (Price) watches on enviously. Richard is an incredibly capable leader of men, but is way behind in the line of succession. He keeps a mini theatre hidden away where he plans to remove everybody in his way, and despite the many rivals who could challenge him for the crown, the hunchbacked prince will stop at nothing until he is seated on the throne.Although not a horror, Tower of London certainly looks like one. The huge set created for the film became a staple of Universal, and the dark, chilling castle could be seen in many genre pieces produced by the studio in the following years. There's also a few brutal but bloodless murders, almost always involving Karloff's Mord, who is the closest thing the film has to a monster. Yet for the most part, this is more akin to Shakespeare, performed by a ridiculous wealth of acting talent. There are great turns by Hunter, Mander, Price (in only his fourth role) and Barbara O'Neil as Queen Elyzabeth, but the film belongs to Rathbone and Karloff, with the former even eclipsing Laurence Olivier's arguably hammy thesping in the 1955 film. Packing what is an incredibly complex tale into 90 minutes can confuse matters, but this is an entertaining, somewhat lighter alternative to Shakespeare's infinitely more grandiose work.

dougdoepke 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.

Witchfinder General 666 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!

Mart Sander As this film premiered a mere week after The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, I can't help but think how the viewers compared the two historical spectacles. In this case Universal comes in second (as might be the case when you compete against Warner Bros) even though The Tower of London is great fun to watch. The ensemble of the male actors is perfect: Karloff, Rathbone and Price at one go means a good show. They look great and are well fit for historical parts. The ladies are, nevertheless, hideous. They are required to wear unidentified period costumes with weird wigs and head-gears combined with very thirties make-up which make them appear as some kind of crossbreeds between Isolde and Mickey Mouse. Perhaps the smell of mediocre production values could have been suffocated by the use of color photography, but alas, the b/w images never take off as they should. The film still moves along effortlessly and if you can look past the obvious thirties liberties taken with the subject and artwork - or indeed, if you enjoy these - then the film is a plate of definite dessert.