Seems the director didn't know what tone to stick with, because it goes from Creepy Castle Ghost Story to Torture Porn by the final act. Also some mumbo jumbo about a psychic that's trying to decipher a message from 2 murdered princes...its just not well executed enough to keep the viewer invested. Too bad, because with an awesome (real) castle setting & better filmmakers, this could've been a GREAT horror film, instead it is below average! Best to avoid!
11 Reviews
The good, the horrible and the mediocre.
SirenKnight23 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
So yep-the costumes are renaissance faire bargain bin rentals. Most of the actors are mediocre at best. Yes the torture chamber was more torture porn (though only male backside nudity- fyi), and largely unnecessary to the overall story other than to provide additional mediocre acting and effects for horror that in those moments border more on comical. On top of a lot of cheap costumes there were also a lot of really cheap sets (the dungeon bars appear to be made of painted strips of wood).
Then there are the anachronisms, and there are lots. Lack of court wandering the halls, the kings chambers have a rough cut wood door, inside a palace where other rooms are opulent, Bobby pins, fake candles, shiny manacles.. things like that. I'm not an expert and didn't look all those up but that's what stood out the most to me.
But you don't go into a bargain bin B movie and not expect all of that. The sound was actually not terrible which is something that I appreciate. Super low budget films don't record it separately so the sound effects and/or voices are usually horrible. There is also some unnecessary things, like people trying to row a boat that don't know how and are completely unnecessary to the story as anything other than, yes, we're trying to legit appear to be the Tower of London.
The story of the two princes is true and unsolved as of today because Queen Elizabeth II didn't want to dig up the (one of the two sets of two) children found in the tower that were buried as the two princes for dna testing. So we'll have to wait and see if Charles wants to do it. They were also found long after the period the movie is set. In fact their disappearance played a strong role in changing the future trajectory of the ruling royals and is alluded to in the movie by Richard. However other than that and the primary character names the rest veers far off actual history.
Anyway....
-- here there be spoilers---
All that said, there were some twists I enjoyed which included the poetic comeuppance of many of the characters that others mentioned. I like karma and good endings so that is always with a rating bump to me. So yeah, everybody dies, and I do have to mention that you reach a point in the movie when just about everyone starts seeing ghosts of some sort, and about the time you start to wonder why they need Henry is when the end starts to reveal its few twists and turns.
I'm only noting them in case you got too annoyed or were multitasking and missed them because they're fairly obvious. The villagers (Fairpoint) that set up Henry gets (one) tortured and (both) killed anyway. (14 pieces of silver anyone?) The treacherous Queen gets her insides eaten by the children that she killed. Richard gets killed by the Father that Henry mentions when he first arrives telling the young priest how he died at Richards (and the priest realizes later, also the torturers) hands.
The priest is taken by a demon - pride goeth before the fall, considering he CHOSE where the pear of anguish was going to go, (not the face!) and considering what brought the Demon there?. Also Random annoying thing, why on earth was the pear the part that finally cracked the torturer? Idk! But also the Priest had it coming by then for asking Henry to do what he did in the end. The torturer they leave to the imagination.
Finally you think Henry escapes only to find it's his own family reaching out to talk to him after his death... I actually loved that part considering their relationship as a result of that gift/curse.
Last if you read this far - I don't apologize for being prolific. ;)
Then there are the anachronisms, and there are lots. Lack of court wandering the halls, the kings chambers have a rough cut wood door, inside a palace where other rooms are opulent, Bobby pins, fake candles, shiny manacles.. things like that. I'm not an expert and didn't look all those up but that's what stood out the most to me.
But you don't go into a bargain bin B movie and not expect all of that. The sound was actually not terrible which is something that I appreciate. Super low budget films don't record it separately so the sound effects and/or voices are usually horrible. There is also some unnecessary things, like people trying to row a boat that don't know how and are completely unnecessary to the story as anything other than, yes, we're trying to legit appear to be the Tower of London.
The story of the two princes is true and unsolved as of today because Queen Elizabeth II didn't want to dig up the (one of the two sets of two) children found in the tower that were buried as the two princes for dna testing. So we'll have to wait and see if Charles wants to do it. They were also found long after the period the movie is set. In fact their disappearance played a strong role in changing the future trajectory of the ruling royals and is alluded to in the movie by Richard. However other than that and the primary character names the rest veers far off actual history.
Anyway....
-- here there be spoilers---
All that said, there were some twists I enjoyed which included the poetic comeuppance of many of the characters that others mentioned. I like karma and good endings so that is always with a rating bump to me. So yeah, everybody dies, and I do have to mention that you reach a point in the movie when just about everyone starts seeing ghosts of some sort, and about the time you start to wonder why they need Henry is when the end starts to reveal its few twists and turns.
I'm only noting them in case you got too annoyed or were multitasking and missed them because they're fairly obvious. The villagers (Fairpoint) that set up Henry gets (one) tortured and (both) killed anyway. (14 pieces of silver anyone?) The treacherous Queen gets her insides eaten by the children that she killed. Richard gets killed by the Father that Henry mentions when he first arrives telling the young priest how he died at Richards (and the priest realizes later, also the torturers) hands.
The priest is taken by a demon - pride goeth before the fall, considering he CHOSE where the pear of anguish was going to go, (not the face!) and considering what brought the Demon there?. Also Random annoying thing, why on earth was the pear the part that finally cracked the torturer? Idk! But also the Priest had it coming by then for asking Henry to do what he did in the end. The torturer they leave to the imagination.
Finally you think Henry escapes only to find it's his own family reaching out to talk to him after his death... I actually loved that part considering their relationship as a result of that gift/curse.
Last if you read this far - I don't apologize for being prolific. ;)
The Haunting of the Tower of London
CinemaSerf24 July 2023
Set during the dying days of England's King Edward IV, this is a speculative version of the events that removed his legitimate heir and his brother and smoothed the process of ensuring that Richard III succeeded to give battle in vain. Now I say speculative because this has largely abandoned the history and supplanted it with the vivid imagination of auteur Charlie Steeds. He can't have had much money or time for anything here, but despite that he manages to film a certain effective eeriness to the scenarios. There is, however, nothing more to be said for this fanciful, slightly kinky, and really quite risible tale of usurpation. The acting is as bad as the writing - and that's saying something. Richard Rowden and Reece Connolly come across little better than easy on the eye drama school students and Tim Cartwright's attempt at portraying the megalomanic Richard III can be guaranteed to remind you of the original "Blackadder" series from forty years earlier. The myths about the princes in the tower are a great seam for film makers. This one? Well it's one that needs to be planted six feet under!
Dead Broke.
luxorian28 June 2022
If you like appalling acting etc,then you'll love this!
I am all for people making a movie with little money,but this just doesn't cut it!
Mr Steeds needs to make fewer films and concentrate on putting his finances into something more worthwhile!
I am all for people making a movie with little money,but this just doesn't cut it!
Mr Steeds needs to make fewer films and concentrate on putting his finances into something more worthwhile!
What a load of...
maynewheeler-c25 July 2022
Avoid.
From the crap music, script to acting, its just terrible. I couldnt last the whole thing and I hate myself for even trying to watch it.
Save yourselves and watch something that has enjoyable well written and acted films, you will not get anything here but boredom or screams of laughter at it!
From the crap music, script to acting, its just terrible. I couldnt last the whole thing and I hate myself for even trying to watch it.
Save yourselves and watch something that has enjoyable well written and acted films, you will not get anything here but boredom or screams of laughter at it!
Bargain basement trash
Leofwine_draca2 November 2022
THE HAUNTING OF THE TOWER OF LONDON is another one of those dead cheap indies you see filling bargain bins and the bottom tier of DVD shelving. How they get released I have no idea, but there's obviously profit to be made because they keep making them no matter the quality. This one is supposedly about the mystery of the princes in the Tower - the ones supposedly murdered by Richard III - but isn't really about anything other than some vengeful spirits, cosplaying stars, and a production that doesn't go within 100 miles of the real location. There's some extended torture sequences later on but hardly worth tuning in for.
British Bin Collection Night
saint_brett22 May 2024
Warning: Spoilers
What, is this England's answer to 'A Haunting in Connecticut?'
Aren't all the Towers of London tourist destinations today?
The movie starts out with King Henry the 8th and his merry men stealing a Super Mario Brothers power-up box that contains used-up humans living beyond their means. Yeah, right - a treasure chest full of human remains of little to no value.
Queen Elizabeth 2 is informed of the dead-end find while King Edward lies in wait to replace a dying jester who refuses to kick the bucket. This King Edward of Glasgow reminds me of Vern Schillinger from 'Oz.' (I never did finish watching that series, and I don't know if he ever got his hands on Beecher.)
Meatloaf's dad is sent to the gulag and tries to cut a deal with Annie Wilkes in a conspiracy of murderous proportions.
This movie's like part two of some 'Game of Thrones' series. It just starts like it's a sequel to another movie and the viewer is supposed to know the story off by heart like a continuation from another story.
Among the suspects is none other than Santa Claus, who's loitering around a young lass. They conduct a seance with a famous carpenter lookalike who summons Mary Peabody, Santa Claus' excommunicated mistress, who causes division between Mrs. Claus and the young wee lass Santa's so fond of.
Not making any sense, a demon from Lamberto Bava's movie, or The Fly's mother, plays ring a ring rosy and warns twits not to go to Center Point Tower or Humpty Dumpty's Bridge; otherwise, all the king's men will ship you off down under to face the wrath of the space needle tower gizmo.
Around the 31-minute mark, the tower displays wall paper, which I highly doubt even existed back in this era.
Vern Schillinger goes to town on Annie Wilkes with her own dagger for treason, then interrogates the famous carpenter from biblical times.
In a shock twist, for anyone who even cares, Santa Claus is murdered for encroachment while his mistress is tortured for espionage.
This dude thinks he's the king from 'Lord of the Rings 3.' A naked torso is captured and whipped by a squidgy wonder mop that absorbs ten times more spillage and holds more slippage than a ShamWow.
A monk hooks up with the famous carpenter lookalike, and they exchange intimate fantasies about dead women and conspire to have Vern Schillinger murdered. A hit is then put out on him, and a bag of jewels is the asking rate.
The monk and Zelda, looking dapper in his red-strength power suit, dig up a corpse and steal a ruby dispenser amulet. Where Zelda came from in the storyline, I have no idea. They then strip down and give each other a sponge bath, bicker over odds and ends, and decide who gets to wear the ruby power bracelet.
It turns out Vern Schillinger was having a fling with Queen Elizabeth II, much to Jack Black's displeasure. Yeah, I didn't mention him before, as he was bedridden and just a bit player in the movie, dying on his death bed.
The monk becomes a patsy and is given an enema with a metal fly trap.
Is that Malcolm McDowell fella supposed to be Alistaire Crowley?
The big finale comes down to the famous carpenter lookalike calling upon band members from KLF, still dressed in their silk robes and horns, to raise the dead to take down Crowley. They stab him with a Castlevania power tool, as he's really a vampire who loses his jaw from shock. No doubt, in part two, they'll gather all his pieces back together again, like you-know-who, and release the revenge again.
The DVD cover is awesome, and the synopsis was intriguing, but the movie failed to deliver on all counts.
This is another movie I've borrowed from the library, and I'm a self-confessed imbecile for watching the crap I do most nights.
Entertainment today is just plain stupid.
The movie starts out with King Henry the 8th and his merry men stealing a Super Mario Brothers power-up box that contains used-up humans living beyond their means. Yeah, right - a treasure chest full of human remains of little to no value.
Queen Elizabeth 2 is informed of the dead-end find while King Edward lies in wait to replace a dying jester who refuses to kick the bucket. This King Edward of Glasgow reminds me of Vern Schillinger from 'Oz.' (I never did finish watching that series, and I don't know if he ever got his hands on Beecher.)
Meatloaf's dad is sent to the gulag and tries to cut a deal with Annie Wilkes in a conspiracy of murderous proportions.
This movie's like part two of some 'Game of Thrones' series. It just starts like it's a sequel to another movie and the viewer is supposed to know the story off by heart like a continuation from another story.
Among the suspects is none other than Santa Claus, who's loitering around a young lass. They conduct a seance with a famous carpenter lookalike who summons Mary Peabody, Santa Claus' excommunicated mistress, who causes division between Mrs. Claus and the young wee lass Santa's so fond of.
Not making any sense, a demon from Lamberto Bava's movie, or The Fly's mother, plays ring a ring rosy and warns twits not to go to Center Point Tower or Humpty Dumpty's Bridge; otherwise, all the king's men will ship you off down under to face the wrath of the space needle tower gizmo.
Around the 31-minute mark, the tower displays wall paper, which I highly doubt even existed back in this era.
Vern Schillinger goes to town on Annie Wilkes with her own dagger for treason, then interrogates the famous carpenter from biblical times.
In a shock twist, for anyone who even cares, Santa Claus is murdered for encroachment while his mistress is tortured for espionage.
This dude thinks he's the king from 'Lord of the Rings 3.' A naked torso is captured and whipped by a squidgy wonder mop that absorbs ten times more spillage and holds more slippage than a ShamWow.
A monk hooks up with the famous carpenter lookalike, and they exchange intimate fantasies about dead women and conspire to have Vern Schillinger murdered. A hit is then put out on him, and a bag of jewels is the asking rate.
The monk and Zelda, looking dapper in his red-strength power suit, dig up a corpse and steal a ruby dispenser amulet. Where Zelda came from in the storyline, I have no idea. They then strip down and give each other a sponge bath, bicker over odds and ends, and decide who gets to wear the ruby power bracelet.
It turns out Vern Schillinger was having a fling with Queen Elizabeth II, much to Jack Black's displeasure. Yeah, I didn't mention him before, as he was bedridden and just a bit player in the movie, dying on his death bed.
The monk becomes a patsy and is given an enema with a metal fly trap.
Is that Malcolm McDowell fella supposed to be Alistaire Crowley?
The big finale comes down to the famous carpenter lookalike calling upon band members from KLF, still dressed in their silk robes and horns, to raise the dead to take down Crowley. They stab him with a Castlevania power tool, as he's really a vampire who loses his jaw from shock. No doubt, in part two, they'll gather all his pieces back together again, like you-know-who, and release the revenge again.
The DVD cover is awesome, and the synopsis was intriguing, but the movie failed to deliver on all counts.
This is another movie I've borrowed from the library, and I'm a self-confessed imbecile for watching the crap I do most nights.
Entertainment today is just plain stupid.
A little silly...a little over the top but...
AndyVanScoyoc11 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Watchable.
I've seen MUCH worse.
The acting isn't too bad, the story wasn't too bad...it just needed more work than was put into it.
Some of it didn't make sense...such as, why the princes turned evil after they died, going after everyone EXCEPT their murderer (whom they knew) and those who helped and covered it up.
Not that I'm saying I know the laws of the dead, but it just seems wrong the way the story unfolded.
The settings were beautiful and obviously a lot of thought went into them, but the movie itself needed some work.
I've seen a lot of comments about the acting. As a former magazine owner who's reviewed hundreds and hundreds of movies... obviously, anyone who thinks this movie is so bad, hasn't seen enough films.
While this one needed work, it wasn't as bad as it could have been... TRUST ME.
Give it a watch.
I've seen MUCH worse.
The acting isn't too bad, the story wasn't too bad...it just needed more work than was put into it.
Some of it didn't make sense...such as, why the princes turned evil after they died, going after everyone EXCEPT their murderer (whom they knew) and those who helped and covered it up.
Not that I'm saying I know the laws of the dead, but it just seems wrong the way the story unfolded.
The settings were beautiful and obviously a lot of thought went into them, but the movie itself needed some work.
I've seen a lot of comments about the acting. As a former magazine owner who's reviewed hundreds and hundreds of movies... obviously, anyone who thinks this movie is so bad, hasn't seen enough films.
While this one needed work, it wasn't as bad as it could have been... TRUST ME.
Give it a watch.
Was crazy suspenseful
pookus-556923 July 2022
Ghosts and Gore
iamkrause27 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Was pleasantly surprised by this one. Kinda had a Hammer Horror vibe. It's based on the real-life murders of two princes at the Tower of London in 1483. Of course, there was never any ghost stuff going on, but the movie is a fun "what-if?"
It's your typical ghost movie, so you pretty much know what to expect, but the ghost effects are pretty good. There is also a lot of torture chamber scenes that get really brutal. I've never seen a Pear of Anguish used so effectively.
Has a nice downbeat ending where all the bad guys get what they deserve, but all the heroes die too. Ghost movies tend to bore me but this one had enough bloody violence to keep me satisfied. This isn't a 100-million-dollar production or anything but I was impressed nonetheless.
It's your typical ghost movie, so you pretty much know what to expect, but the ghost effects are pretty good. There is also a lot of torture chamber scenes that get really brutal. I've never seen a Pear of Anguish used so effectively.
Has a nice downbeat ending where all the bad guys get what they deserve, but all the heroes die too. Ghost movies tend to bore me but this one had enough bloody violence to keep me satisfied. This isn't a 100-million-dollar production or anything but I was impressed nonetheless.
Creepy story with a nasty third act ...
parry_na26 May 2023
Prolific UK filmmaker Charlie Steeds writes, directs and edits this medieval horror chiller based on the infamous legend. As usual, this is a slim-budgeted venture, but Steeds enlivens scenes with some terrific cinematography and lighting and some (mainly) convincing acting. The playful, sometimes coarse, humour prevalent in some of the director's other productions is mainly absent here - instead, gratuity and gore is the main staple.
I really like these kinds of productions, and currently, there are plenty being made in the UK. They remind me of a modern-day Hammer style (the titles here are extremely reminiscent of the legendary studio's output and locations look similarly winter-bound).
It isn't flawless. The pace slackens here and there, some of the performances are not as sharp as they might be and occasionally the dialogue is anachronistic - but the story is a good one and well told. Happily, there are also some effectively creepy moments (and a particularly nasty third act). My score is 7 out of 10.
I really like these kinds of productions, and currently, there are plenty being made in the UK. They remind me of a modern-day Hammer style (the titles here are extremely reminiscent of the legendary studio's output and locations look similarly winter-bound).
It isn't flawless. The pace slackens here and there, some of the performances are not as sharp as they might be and occasionally the dialogue is anachronistic - but the story is a good one and well told. Happily, there are also some effectively creepy moments (and a particularly nasty third act). My score is 7 out of 10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
