Touches You

So much average

Pretty Good

The acting in this movie is really good.

This lavish historical spectacle moves like a cavalry charge down a steep hill until about halfway through. Oddly enough, the point at which the action starts to slow down is when Edward IV dies. As Edward is played by that normally stodgy actor, Ian Hunter, one would have thought that his death would make little difference. But Hunter is a great deal more animated than usual in "Tower of London". Not only does he play his lines with force and credibility, but he portrays Edward as a scoundrel who is as lively and charismatic as he is unscrupulous and dastardly. Rathbone, on the other hand, who is cast in the seemingly more meatier role of Richard, plays it rather cool and deadly, with little animation. He comes to life only in his dueling sequences which he carries off with his usual flair. Karloff, rather strikingly made up with his bald head, twisted leg and club foot, is a more interesting presence.At its best, the film ranks as a must-see movie. The battle sequences (especially the initial conflict in the rain) and the set pieces (like the execution) are most vividly directed and staged. Great sets and superb cinematography add significantly to the film's appeal. The only technical letdown is provided by the rather pedestrian music score.

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.

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."

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!