Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

gavin6942 In the 15th century Richard Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone), aided by his club-footed executioner Mord (Boris Karloff), eliminates those ahead of him in succession to the throne, then occupied by his brother King Edward IV of England.This film has suffered from being thought of as horror, probably because it has Vincent Price (in a very early role) and Boris Karloff. It is not horror. Some have taken to calling it "quasi-horror", which may be true, though exactly what that means is not clear so who is to say? Anyway, if you go in expecting horror, you will leave disappointed.As a historical drama, this is an exceptional film. If you do not know English royal history, the characters are more than a little confusing. But if you go in understanding the basic plot, it is a great tale of treachery and evil ambition. And, for the most part, a true story.

kevin olzak 1939's "Tower of London" was a Universal 'A' budget picture, director Rowland V. Lee's followup to "Son of Frankenstein," as conceived by his brother Robert N. Lee, who also scripted Rowland's final feature in 1945, "Captain Kidd." Together, they chose a real-life horror story set in 14th century Britain, the throne usurped by three brothers, immortalized by Shakespeare's "Richard III." Wearing the crown is King Edward IV (Ian Hunter), his closest adviser brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone), while half brother George, Duke of Clarence (Vincent Price), is regarded as a self serving weakling. Few are aware of Richard's own aspirations toward the throne, though Edward's wife, Queen Elyzabeth (Barbara O'Neil), correctly suspects that Gloucester is not the loving uncle her sons believe him to be. Boris Karloff's Mord is the chief executioner, ruling over the Tower of London, where all of Richard's enemies eventually end up. The first victim opening the film is played by John Rodion, Basil Rathbone's son from his first marriage, whose only other credit was also with his father (1938's "The Dawn Patrol"). The wine jousting death of Clarence is memorable (borrowed by Price himself in 1973's "Theater of Blood"), but by far the most shocking are the cold blooded murders of Edward's two sons, the boy King having taken his father's place upon the throne, only for Richard to order their deaths in striking back at the defiant Queen Mother. Karloff preferred the term 'terror' over the word 'horror' in describing his films, but surely would have had no problem describing this movie as a genuine 'horror film.' Basil Rathbone enjoys one of his greatest screen roles, handsome and resplendent, his humpback barely noticeable. Having debuted in Universal's 'Service De Luxe,' Vincent Price (in only his third feature) would finish his brief sojourn at the studio following "Green Hell," "The Invisible Man Returns," and "The House of the Seven Gables," moving on to 20th Century-Fox for "Hudson's Bay." Splendidly hamming it up in this first brush with the genre he became indelibly linked, Price actually graduated to starring as Richard himself in Roger Corman's impoverished 1962 remake, also titled "Tower of London." Price would also be reunited with John Sutton in "The Invisible Man Returns," "Bagdad," "The Bat," and "Return of the Fly."

comicman117 Tower of London (1939) Directed and Produced by Roland V. Lee. Starring Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff Barbara O'Neil, Ian Hunter, Vincent Price, Nan Grey, Leo G. Carroll, John Sutton, Miles Mander, and Donnie Dunagan (for some reason I can't stop laughing at those two names being together).The opening music in Tower of London would tell you that it's a horror film. The truth of the matter is, that Tower of London isn't much of a horror film, as it a historical piece. Despite the presence of Boris Karloff, Vincent Price and yes Basil Rathbone (he did some Horror films), this is attempting to be more straight than scary. The film is more or less a retelling of Richard iii (Rathbone) attempts to conquer the throne in England during the 15th century, by any means necessary. Richard is joined by his loyal executioner Mord (Karloff). It is a story of betrayal, power, and descent into madness. It is an interesting retelling, but does have some differences.Released the same year as Son of Frankenstein (both films feature the same two leads, Rathbone and Karloff). Tower of London was probably more or less an attempt to give Basil Rathbone a leading role, that wasn't Sherlock Holmes (this film even begins with Starring Basil Rathbone and then listing the rest of the cast members as with).This film features some fencing. With Rathbone being a naturally trained fencer, Roland V. Lee and the other people behind the film felt that they could probably get away with having fencing in the film (seeing as it was a common thing in that era). And the fights are pretty impressive, probably the best parts of the film, being extremely entertaining, as Richard likes to fence with other people.There is a particularly good scene where after King Henry death is announced, Richard goes to his room and there he set of a dolls lined up, these dolls all have something in common, they are people that he wants dead. With King Henry and two others descent for the throne having already been knocked out, he throws the dolls into the fire, and places the remaining heirs to the throne on top, plotting which one to kill next. The scene is particularly good, because it shows how far Richard will go just to ascend to the throne. The music that plays in the background is particularly good, giving the scene an eerie feeling.Three of the six actors in this film (Rathbone, Karloff and Price) would all reunite with the film, The Comedy of Terrors. A scene in that film mirrors this film, by having Price kill off Rathbone (after Rathbone wouldn't stop coming back to life).The scenery is terrific. It actually looks like we're in London in the 1400's.The acting is pretty good with Rathbone as usual perfect in the role of the sinister Richard the iii, with Karloff just as equally good in the role of his henchman Mord, who is sinister and freaky. Vincent Price is good in a small role, which was one of his earliest films. Here he plays the Duke of Clarence who meets gets challenged to a drinking contest by his brother Richard the iii (you heard me right), that ends with one survivor. Although Price is commonly associated with low-brow horror films, one must not forget that Price started as a serious dramatic supporting actor (including appearances in films such as Laura, and Dragonwyck, and then became started making horror films in the 50's. Another good performance in the film is Ian Hunter as King Edward IV. Here he is depicted as being stronger than what he was in say the Shakespeare play, Richard the iii.The film was remade in 1962 by Roger Corman (although maybe in name only). Ironically enough this time it starred Vincent Price in the role of Richard.All and all the Tower of London is fairly entertaining. I wouldn't call it the most accurate retelling of a historical event, but I wouldn't call it the worst. The acting makes up for most of its fault and for the most part, I suggest it worth a look. Of course I don't like the fact that people label this as a horror film, as there's nothing really scary about it.

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!