Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

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

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

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.

BA_Harrison Loosely based on William Shakespeare's version of events, Roger Corman's Tower of London stars horror legend Vincent Price as wicked hunchbacked royal Richard III, who is determined to be king of England by any means. After the death of his older brother Edward IV (Justice Watson), Richard turns to murder to ensure that he is next in line for the throne, stabbing his other brother George, Duke of Clarence and dumping the body in a wine barrel (a trick Price would later employ in the excellent Theatre of Blood), torturing innocent maiden Mistress Shore (Sandra Knight) on the rack, accidentally throttling his wife Anne (Joan Camden), smothering his young nephews as they sleep in the tower, and executing the Earl of Buckingham (Bruce Gordon) by ravenous rat. As Richard carries out these evil acts, madness takes hold and he is plagued by ghostly visions of his victims.In telling their quasi-historic horror tale, Corman and Price go for a melodramatic approach that frequently borders on the cheesy, with the star giving one of the hammiest performances of his career. Price's overripe delivery is Shakespearean in tone, but his dialogue is more prosaic than the bard's, making it easier to understand. Also serving to make this more saleable to the average moviegoer are the rather sensationalist torture scenes (nasty Richard revelling in the pain and suffering of his victims), the cold blooded murders, and the numerous macabre apparitions, which may have been creepy back in the day, but now entertain for all the wrong reasons. While not a classic collaboration by director and star, almost any Price vehicle is worth at least one watch, and Tower of London is no exception.

mark.waltz Could you imagine spoofing the life of British King Richard III as a musical? Song titles such as my overview, "Disconnected With Winter" and of course, "I have a hunch I'm going to be King" could do for Shakespeare's tragedy the same way that the current Broadway smash "Something Rotten" is doing for "Hamlet".Not a remake of the Universal classic where Vincent Price played the Duke of Clarence, this has its own structure in telling the story of the mad king whose remains are rumored to have been recently found. King Richard has gotten his share of dramatization, and a recent revival of Shakespeare's play got him further interest. But this is American International's version of his life, one that is practically a one man show for Vincent Price, excellent if hammy, and a vision of one man's madness that controls his inner torment and feelings of guilt, manipulated by an insane ambition under the guise of doing what he felt was best for England.As the Duke of Clarence, Price was a victim of Richard's madness, another excellent performance by Basil Rathbone who along with Boris Karloff was responsible for his gruesome demise. The tortures and demises here are far more gruesome, involving a stretching rack, a rat in a wooden box covering somebody's head, and the attempted strangulation of a ghost which has a gruesome discovery of the victim for the devastated Price. Not as poetically written as Shakespeare's play, this adds more of the horror element, and it makes the story accessible to all audiences. As done in black and white, it comes off moodier and much more haunting. The usage of all of the victims as ghosts adds to the spookiness, and this makes it truly gripping rather than gory thanks to the insinuations of the horror rather than the use of excessive blood. Price has one of his great roles here, using melodramatic mannerisms to show Richard's inner torment. Shakespeare buffs may quibble a bit, but I don't think that they will be un-entertained.

Rainey Dawn 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