I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

That was an excellent one.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Contrary to many an assumption, Tower of London is actually not a horror film, despite the dark and miserable English castle setting, the sight of Boris Karloff as club-footed executioner Mord, and the presence of Rowland V. Lee - a director perhaps best known for Son of Frankenstein (also released in 1939) - behind the camera. There's also the existence of Roger Corman's low-budget effort of the same name, which emphasised the horror and pushed genre legend Vincent Price (who also appears here in a smaller role) into the central role as the deformed, scheming Richard III. In fact, Lee's Tower of London is a historical drama, borrowing much from Shakespeare's Richard III but somewhat confusingly leaving out much of the detail.Edward IV (Ian Hunter) sits comfortably on the throne of England after defeating King Henry VI (Miles Mander) and imprisoning him in the Tower of London. The feeble-minded former king wears a paper crown and lives in the hope that his son will return from exile in France to reclaim his crown. Edward enjoys combat practice with his formidable and cunning brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone), while their soft, drunken younger brother the Duke of Clarence (Price) watches on enviously. Richard is an incredibly capable leader of men, but is way behind in the line of succession. He keeps a mini theatre hidden away where he plans to remove everybody in his way, and despite the many rivals who could challenge him for the crown, the hunchbacked prince will stop at nothing until he is seated on the throne.Although not a horror, Tower of London certainly looks like one. The huge set created for the film became a staple of Universal, and the dark, chilling castle could be seen in many genre pieces produced by the studio in the following years. There's also a few brutal but bloodless murders, almost always involving Karloff's Mord, who is the closest thing the film has to a monster. Yet for the most part, this is more akin to Shakespeare, performed by a ridiculous wealth of acting talent. There are great turns by Hunter, Mander, Price (in only his fourth role) and Barbara O'Neil as Queen Elyzabeth, but the film belongs to Rathbone and Karloff, with the former even eclipsing Laurence Olivier's arguably hammy thesping in the 1955 film. Packing what is an incredibly complex tale into 90 minutes can confuse matters, but this is an entertaining, somewhat lighter alternative to Shakespeare's infinitely more grandiose work.

This slow-moving piece benefits from a very effective performances by star Basil Rathbone as a corrupt duke whose ambitious nature leads him to gradually destroy all those who stand between him and the crown. Rathbone exudes cunning evil in this enduring film, and his scheming and wicked ways are the chief reason to watch. Not many other actors could have done this better. Although Rathbone is best known for his role in over a dozen Sherlock Holmes films in the 1940s, this remains one of his best performances ever.Some people have complained that this melodrama is too slow, not in my opinion. I think a lot of people are simply disappointed that this isn't exactly a horror film after it was recently re-released in misleading packaging. Sure, it's not horror, but there are plenty of frightening moments (plus the usual torture, beheadings, sword fights, you name it...), and Boris Karloff stumps around in makeup which wouldn't look out of place in any spooker you care to mention. Karloff here adopts the role of a faithful manservant to Rathbone, a bald executioner with a club foot who carries out his master's bidding unnervingly. Karloff isn't given much opportunity to act here, apart from in a scene with a young child, and mainly trades in on his terrible Frankenstein image. But then there's no harm in that.The time period of the film is very good, as we gradually watch Rathbone rise through the various ranks in the royal court. Absolutely nobody stands in his way in the film until the final moments where a heroic opponent escapes and paves the way for a full-scale battle. The acting is uniformly good, as is the score, and it's nice to see a young Vincent Price in an amusing role as a drunkard who meets his end in a vat of red wine. Price sports a terrible British accent here and plays a very effeminate character, but his portrayal of drunkenness is accurate and you can see the seeds which eventually led to him becoming a famed actor some two decades later in the likes of THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH.As for the horror content, there are a few choice moments in a torture chamber to delight the genre fan. Karloff is a master of pain, casually tossing water over a floor for a prisoner to lick up and dropping a weight on a man's chest in passing. I was surprised how graphic some of these tortures were, and one man has to survive whipping, branding, and even being stretched on the rack at the end of the film. Some battering! If you want to see a Shakespeare play given a top-notch treatment by some forgotten stars, then TOWER OF London is the film for you.

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."

When that martyr to morality, that paragon of piety Sir Thomas More had his head chopped off by the order of his master, Henry VIII, it's unlikely in those last moments that he asked forgiveness for the sliming of Richard III's reputation, which he accomplished while ambitiously working to curry favor with the Tudors. Richard was the last of the Yorkist line, a capable and honest king, as ruthless in politics as everyone else was at that time, and most likely, if he had not taken action, to lose his own head to the machinations of the Woodvilles, the family of Queen Elizabeth, widow of Edward IV, Richard's brother, and mother to the two young princes who were the immediate heirs to the throne when Edward died. We know that Richard took control of the princes, that they were lodged with great comfort in the Tower, that he had them proclaimed illegitimate based on a prior morganatic marriage Edward had undertaken, and that there is no record of them having been seen during the last months of Richard's reign. We also know that Henry Tudor, a minor and ambitious offspring from the royal line, returned to England, raised an army and defeated Richard when the forces of Lord Stanley betrayed Richard and attacked his flank in the middle of the battle at Bosworth Field. Tudor took the crown, Richard's body disappeared after being abused, and the Tudor propaganda machine took over. Thanks primarily to Thomas More and, later, William Shakespeare, Richard was turned into a crook-backed, club-footed, amoral monster who slew innocent children, beheaded stalwart lovers of England, wooed widows over the caskets of their husbands and, to put it gently, was an unreliable friend. When Richard was killed in battle, the Tudors saw to it that Richard's reputation as a fair and capable king died with him. And that brings us to Tower of London. Here we have a cauldron of a movie bubbling merrily away that spatters as much rancid stew on Richard almost as vividly as Shakespeare and More did. Basil Rathbone plays Richard with enthusiastic malice. As a henchman, he has Boris Karloff as Mord, a big, club-footed, bald-headed, muscular torturer, eager to use the executioner's axe or the torturer's rack and whip. "You're more than a duke," Mord tells Richard, "more than a king. You're a god to me!" Mord eagerly and admiringly acts on Richard's plans, from thrusting a dagger into the back of the mad old Henry VI to tipping Clarence, Richard's troublesome brother, into a huge vat of malmsey, then sitting on the lid while waiting for the sound of the bubbles to stop. Just as with Shakespeare's Richard, Hollywood's Rathbonian version is great fun, at least as long as Richard has center stage. Things slow down when we spend time seeing how angelic the two royal tykes are. There also is a romantic and conventional subplot between a lady- in-waiting and a young man dedicated to helping Henry Tudor bring down Richard. This is Basil Rathbone's movie, however, and he makes the most of it with icy diction and some good lines. He hands his own dagger to Mord, then sends him to where Henry VI is praying. "A fitting occasion for a blade in the shape of a cross," Richard says. "It will insure the thrust and bless the wound." Karloff gives wonderful, dreadful support. At one point we watch him step heavily on a young royal messenger with his club foot. The boy doesn't survive. Of course, we should know the outcome by now. And who did kill the two young princes? Some say Richard would have been foolish to do so so soon into his reign. Better to wait if he were going to do the deed. The most likely candidate may be the Duke of Buckingham, amoral, unreliable and impetuous, who was eager to have Richard in his debt. My money is on Henry VII. If when Henry won the crown and then found the two princes in the Tower, both with a much better claim to the throne than Henry's, their future would quickly have become their past...as it did. Those who appreciate the gleeful assassination of a person's character will enjoy Lawrence Olivier's Richard III and Ian McKellan's Richard III. Those who might appreciate reading a different point of view should look up Paul Murray Kendall's marvelous biography, Richard III.