When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

'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.

Sure, one shouldn't watch this looking to learn history lessons. Sure, it's not one of director Roger Cormans' better films. And yes, it's clear that Corman and his producer / brother Gene were working with a limited budget. But you just can't go wrong with Vincent Price at his theatrical, Shakespearean best. The film is thick with atmosphere, and the madness in the air of this thing provides the story with a lot of potency. This thing is FUN, damn it, and it merits a look.This is a remake of the 1939 film that also told the tale of the evil and conniving Richard of Gloucester. Price, who played the Duke of Clarence in "Tower of London" '39, here stars as Richard, a monster who contrives his way to the position of King of England. However, his misdeeds will not go unnoticed - various subjects plot to put a monkey wrench in his plans - or unpunished. Those people that Richard tortures or murders reappear as spirits that taunt him mercilessly.Price is ably supported by a fine bunch of actors: Michael Pate as his loyal henchman, lovely Joan Freeman as Lady Margaret, Robert Brown as the strapping Sir Justin, Bruce Gordon as the Earl of Buckingham, Joan Camden as Richards' Lady Macbeth-like wife, Richard Hale as Tyrus the physician, sexy Sandra Knight as Mistress Shore, and Charles Macaulay as Clarence. But make no mistake: this is his show. He dominates "Tower of London" with true ferocity. Richard is a compelling variety of antagonist.The ending falls short of being very satisfying, but up until then this historical drama / horror film shows its viewers a rollicking good time.Seven out of 10.

Tower of London (1962) * 1/2 (out of 4) Vincent Price plays Richard III who murders his way to the throne but soon the ghosts of all he killed comes back to haunt him. I must admit that I didn't care too much for the 1939 version, which featured Karloff and Price but this one here is even worse. I think this is the worst film Corman and Price did together, which is a shame because there's a good movie here somewhere. There are a few nice scenes but overall I found everything to be quite bland and boring. Price is usually great in whatever he does but I found him to be rather bland here. The supporting performances weren't much better and in the end I can't help but feel this is a major misfire all around.

Roger Corman directs his vision of the William Shakespeare story about the humpbacked evil conniving brother Richard III to dying King of England Edward IV with a unique spin. Vincent Price(quite animated) plays the mad Richard to the hilt with theatricality(I could also use the description, hammy, but he's still a joy to watch)as he murders those who stand in his way to the throne. Whether it's to whip and stretch the limbs of Mistress Shore(Sandra Knight), merely a handmaiden to the young princes of the throne, the suffocation of dead Edward's young sons, the accidental choking of his wife believing she was the ghost of Shore, placing a hungry rat in a head cage holding the Earl of Buckingham(Bruce Gordon), or stabbing his brother in the back..we see in Corman's surprisingly violent way(..hardly holding back..we see Richard, and his right-hand man, smother the children in the Tower as one drops a puppet). But, the difference Corman brings to the story is the ghosts who haunt Richard's guilty conscience. Most of the story's layout remains. He will gain his crown, but run into a battle unprepared against an enemy whose smarter and more levelheaded since it's clear Richard should've never been King to start with. He gains the crown, but doesn't have the brains or know-how to fight a battle against a superior enemy.I loved the angle Corman adds to the story regarding the ghosts haunting Richard as it adds a flavor to the picture..a ghoulish, entertaining element played with such macabre relish by a director with grand style in spite of limited budget and means. And, Corman's camera-work is stunning.However, I do feel purists will be turned off by this version of Corman's towards the story by Shakespeare..the dialogue is dumbed down to where it can be easily digestible.