Tower of London

Ambitious, historical tale with lots of battles (fairly well done) and much power struggling, particularly of course by the hunchbacked Richard. The matters romantic slow things down enormously and although clearly striving for some measure of authenticity, there are just too many characters for the budget or script to be able to deal with as one might have liked. However, given the limited resources, a reasonable result is achieved, helped enormously by three excellent male leads. Basil Rathbone is very fine indeed and very convincing in the role of the scheming, Richard and none of the camp Price would bring to the role another time. A very young Vincent price is also most effective and it is great to see his crooked smile and fluttering eyelids already swinging into action. A bit too fey here perhaps but lets himself go in the infamous drinking scene. Incidental to the main story and probably originally added as a bit of light relief, Boris Karloff brings anything but. An appropriately towering performance and despite very few lines and not a lot of screen time he drags himself into centre frame and haunts one's memory afterwards.

It's unfair to compare this horror movie of the pre-WW2 vintage to Richard III of the Bard. While the Tower of London builds on Shakespeare's vilification of Richard III, this tale is much more of a dark genre that was popular at that time and which continued up until after WW2. These are the days of Revenge of the Cat People, Frankenstein and its sequels and other films that strike the mood of those post depression times. The censors of the time forbade any explicit sex or violence and what you saw was always highly stylized. However, presenting a stylized horror film, mild, if not downright tame, by today's standards, required a great deal of subtlety from the actors, which is something sadly lacking in today's slice 'n dice menus. These new horror films are so predictable and rely on gore and explicit violence to provide the thrill which like pornography requires each new presentation to up the ante in mindless antics, each trying to out-gross the previous. So, what have we here in this fine old film. The classic tale of Richard Crook-back. We have the great Basil Rathbone as the Black Duke and Boris Karloff as his fictional sidekick, Mord. Yes, Karloff is nearly a stereotype for the evil henchmen who's willing to carry out the furious demands of his heartless master. But, there's a young Vinnie Price as the Duke of Clarence awaiting a drowning in a vat of Mumsey wine. The action line of this classic story moves quickly, the lines are spoken clearly and the the acting is superb. What else do you want from a 1939 horror drama?

Tower of London is as sinister as Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff and the rest of Universal's horror department can make it. Although the picture is not without its weaknesses, lack of thrills is not one of them. Neither is the casting--Rathbone and Karloff are savage enough to please the most bloodthirsty. Karloff enjoys his role as executioner and spends plenty of time in his torture chamber.

When one has seen the Shakespearean treatment of this story, it falls far short of the masterwork. That said, it isn't fair to compare a low budget period movie to Shakespeare. I think what I did like about it, though, is its visuality. I liked Karloff going through a day's work, putting one more weight on a guy they're suffocating, like a cook checking to see if there's enough salt in the soup. I really like Basil Rathbone. Of course the Sherlock Holmes movies are my favorites, but he is a consummate actor and rises above everyone else in the story. I was disappointed in the lack of character development other than Richard and the silly romantic subplot.

Karloff ,also, should have had his moment to confront Richard since he is a fictionalization anyway.

It was neat seeing Vincent Price begin his mugging, whining characterization of the ineffectual son of the king. I did like the drinking scene but wonder why no one else was there to observe the result. Richard (Rathbone) seemed to have an awfully easy row to hoe. I was also disappointed in the big battle scene at the end, but won't spoil it here.

All in all, I liked looking at this movie, but felt sort of empty at the conclusion. Also, where does it come off as a horror movie, other than the rather comical dungeon scenes?

Richard III of England the maligned Plantagenent twisted by Shakespeare into the legendary ruthless embodiment of Machiavelli's Prince during the reign of the successful Tudor usurpers his only semi favorable appearance in literature is in R.L.Stevenson The Black Arrow. History wrote of him as a hunchbacked withered arm killer king. And in this movie,minus the shriveled left arm,he is. First seen on the local double dip of horror TV.show,it's really a historical drama that benefits from the presence of the great pairing of Karloff and Rathbone,as Mord the executioner and Richard ,respectively. It opens with an execution of a defeated Lancastrian lord during a moment of peace in the War of the Roses between Lancaster and York factions. Both the main villains share a common bond in both being physically flawed with Karloff/Mord having a clubfoot (Which he uses to great effect on a hapless page attempting to deliver a message!) In the hands of the capable director and the great star duo this modest budgeted epic delivers more than the ill-fated Alexander does. An interesting side note; Mr.Rathbone in a later interview said that the extras were wearing papier mache as a substitute for the real thing (modest budget) one of the battle scenes took place in the rain so there was the images of Yorkist and Lancaster men-at-arms flailing away in melting armor with soggy weapons.