Murders in the Zoo (1933) User Reviews

An effective horror picture.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 5 November 2013]

The pre-"Code" horror flick "Murders in the Zoo" is noteworthy for being quite potent for its time. If only some of the comedy relief were eliminated and the horror quotient punched up even more, it really could have been something special. As it is, it's enjoyable but may not be intense enough for the modern viewer. It's highlighted by a wonderfully deranged performance by genre icon Lionel Atwill, here playing Eric Gorman, a zoologist who's pathologically jealous of his hot young wife Evelyn (Kathleen Burke of "Island of Lost Souls"), who admittedly is not exactly faithful to him. He's well aware that his animals make for handy murder weapons, so he employs them whenever he wants to eliminate a man from Evelyns' life.

Three sequences stand out here as being appropriately intense. The film establishes a tone immediately; it begins as Eric sews a mans' mouth shut! Another involves a victim tossed into an alligator pit. And the finale sees many animals escape their cages, and the skirmishes between the big cats are all too convincing. A huge snake gets to do its thing before this is all over.

Capably directed by A. Edward Sutherland, "Murders in the Zoo" does waste some time with its principal comic character, a drunken press agent played by top-billed Charles Ruggles. Ruggles is amiable enough, but isn't funny enough to warrant that much screen time. Otherwise, it's just zippy enough to clock in at a mere 63 minutes. The supporting cast helps keep it watchable: Gail Patrick, Randolph Scott, future Connecticut governor John Lodge, Harry Beresford, Samuel S. Hinds, and Edward McWade. The cinematography is by the celebrated Ernest Haller ("Gone with the Wind", "Rebel Without a Cause", etc.).

Overall, a fun film worth a look for genre fans and completists.

Seven out of 10.

A rather graphic but very good early horror film.

[alexanderdavies-99382 · 7/10 · 19 May 2017]

The opening scene from "Murders in the Zoo" is quite extreme for 1933 audiences . I shalln't say what happens but you can't miss it!

Lionel Atwill steals the show once again as the sadistic, cunning and evil proprietor of various dangerous animals that he plans to sell to a zoo. Little does anyone realise that he shall use his animals for other means........

You only have to observe the expression of Lionel Atwill to know he is a somewhat dodgy customer.

This gem was unfairly ignored for years but is very good on its own merits.

Classic forgotten horror yarn that may make your skin crawl!

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 9 June 2013]

Opening up in Africa with the murder of a zoologist's wife's lover, this frightening thriller doesn't use monsters, mad scientists or ancient mummy's to provide the chills, but nature itself. Lionel Atwill is his delightfully villianess self as the zoologist who uses the deadly green mamba, a giant anaconda like snake, to do his dirty work, and back in the states, as evidence begins to point to him, more bizarre murders occur. Charlie Ruggles brings the tone down from frights to laughs as a man whose skin crawls anytime he's around anything other than a human being. Even milk-craving baby bears and a friendly chimp have him on edge. There's some truly horrifying moments here, including one clever disposal of a body, and a finale that is up there with the final shot of "Freaks" in the art of the macabre. Kathleen Burke (as Atwill's wife), Randolph Scott and Gail Patrick offer fine support, but this is Atwill's film all the way.

He's the zoo keeper!

[Cujo108 · 4 August 2010]

Eric Gorman (Lionel Atwill) hunts down exotic wildlife for a zoo back in the States. He also has an intense jealous streak when it comes to men interacting with his wife (Kathleen Burke from THE horror film of the 30's, Island of Lost Souls). So jealous that he's more than willing to kill any man he deems a threat, and his weapons of choice are the animals that he has access to.

This is a solid 30's horror picture with a unique storyline. It also has a pretty potent mean streak for a film of it's time, one scene involving an alligator pit coming immediately to mind. Lionel Atwill has an effective screen presence as the sinister Gorman. As murderous as he may be, I found it hard to root against the man. What can I say? I'm not remotely sympathetic towards philanderers. His idea to utilize animals as murder weapons is both one of convenience and a clever way to be free of incriminating evidence. The animal attacks, including an encounter with a large python, are intense and believable.

My main qualm with the film is a problem that plagues many pictures of the era, that being the style of comic relief that was popular back then. The Peter Yates character is pretty annoying, and we're treated to a particularly absurd scene where he pops a lion on the head. Charlie Ruggles plays Yates, and he's about as unfunny as it gets. Why he has such a prevailing presence in an otherwise serious film is beyond me. The time taken up by his antics could have been used to further develop our main storyline.

However, this is worth seeing. It's also well-paced, clocking in at just a little more than an hour in length.

Lionel Atwill is a great screen villain

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 12 February 2017]

A rather strange movie - because everyone plays it straight except Charlie Ruggles, who acts as if he is in a slapstick comedy! He plays a marketing man for a municipal zoo who is deathly afraid of animals, and he made me chuckle once or twice, but a little of him goes a long way. The film is thinly plotted, but it contains some fascinating animal footage, and Lionel Atwill is perversely pleasurable to watch as the villain; he is murderously mad with jealousy and desire for his unfaithful wife (Kathleen Burke). It's roles like this one that have made him one of the most important predecessors of horror icons such as Vincent Price. **1/2 out of 4.

Fascinating and entertaining in parts

[ebeckstr-1 · 6/10 · 7 March 2022]

Released before the Hollywood Code began being reinforced, Murders in the Zoo is primarily interesting for how graphic a couple of the murders are and for the presence of Charlie Ruggles and Lionel Atwell.

Ruggles provides the same kind of comic relief he would provide five years later in Bringing up Baby, coincidentally interacting comically with big cats in both films.

Objectively, Murders in the Zoo is fairly slow going, and even the presence of Atwell in a typically villainous role can't make it as entertaining as it ought to be. The pacing is slow, and the script doesn't provide enough suspense and action as, for instance, Mystery of the Wax Museum did the same year. In addition, Wax Museum gives Atwell more to do and has a far more clever script. Zoo is more or less devoid of witty dialogue, whereas Wax Museum is packed with it. I'm comparing the two movie because both are famous examples of movies produced before the enforcement of the Code and both are of the same comedy thriller genre popular at the time.

Despite its shortcomings Murders in the Zoo is well worth watching for people interested in so-called (and incorrectly named) pre-Code flicks, comedy thrillers from that era, and certainly for fans of Atwell.

bewitching presence of that strange but beguiling lady, Kathleen Burke

[christopher-underwood · 6/10 · 2 October 2020]

As is noted by everyone, the decision to soften this horror with extensive scenes of supposed humour from Charlie Ruggles is a shame. Still, this is to take nothing away from Lionel Atwill's fine performance nor the bewitching presence of that strange but beguiling lady, Kathleen Burke. There is a dramatic opening when after it looks as if we are to simply imagine what atrocity has been committed we are confronted with a poor man's sew up mouth in close-up. Nothing is quite as graphic afterwards but there are splendid scenes of the non-PC zoo and a fine, animals let loose scene, towards the end, before a rather splendid denouement even if it involves the wrong sort of snake. Far too much silliness from Ruggles and a rather bloodless alligator pool sequence, without even the hint of a human limb, but overall well worth a watch and pretty bold for the times.

Murders in the Zoo (1933) ***

[JoeKarlosi · 7/10 · 3 October 2004]

This seldom-seen hidden gem features the sadistic Lionel Atwill at his evil best. As a jealous zoologist, he resorts to drastic measures by using his animals to kill any man who makes a play for his luscious wife (Kathleen Burke, the panther woman from ISLAND OF LOST SOULS, who exudes exotic beauty). There are some pretty "extreme" methods of dealing death for such an early film, utilizing snakes, alligators and one pretty horrific sequence involving "sewing".

The only wrench in the works is the maddeningly unfunny comedian, Charlie Ruggles (who even gets top billing!) who's like a consistent thorn in the side of the movie whenever he pops in every now and then. I'm not one for altering original films under any circumstances, but I may make a unique exception in this case to excise all of this idiot's scenes. Luckily, the movie still emerges as an easy and enjoyable 62 minutes if you ignore Ruggles and savor the main plot of a green-eyed husband making people pay. *** out of ****

Cruel and nasty stuff for an early 30s film!

[Coventry · 8/10 · 17 May 2019]

I'm extremely fond of ancient horror movies from the late twenties and early thirties, but admittedly they are usually rather soft and tame both in terms of tone and execution. A. Edward Sutherland's "Murders in the Zoo", however, is not! The concept of the film, and particularly Lionel Atwill's hunter/millionaire character are astonishingly crude and relentless for a 1933 production. Probably so crude, even, that the producers eventually backed off anyways and - unfortunately - decided to compensate the cruelty of the essential plot with far too much light-headed comical relief in the shape of contemporary popular jester Charlie Ruggles. Who knows, without Ruggles, "Murders in the Zoo" might have become as controversial and universally banished as "Freaks" was for several long decades, so I can certainly respect the producers' choice.

The opening sequence is as fiendish and twisted as they come. After he allegedly just 'wanted to kiss her', Eric Gorman (Atwill) blandly disposes of an admirer of his wife by stitching up his lips and leaving him behind in a dark jungle full of wild animals. Back in the US, the petrified wife still has plans to run off with another lover, but the diabolical Gorman uses the zoo to which he supplies exotic animals as a macabre disposal ground. In between, the hysterical Ruggles goofs around as the zoo's marketeer/PR-spokesperson who's afraid of animals. "Murders in the Zoo" benefices from several things, most notably the unpredictable script (you genuinely can't tell who will or won't survive), the classy cinematography of Oscar winner Ernest Haller and the bone-chilling performance of Lionel Atwill. This legendary underrated actor was an evil genius as Dr. Moriarty in "Hound of the Baskervillers" and a vicious psychopath in "Mystery of the Wax Museum", but he was never more terrifying as here in this 30s horror gem.

Lionel Atwill puts zoo specimens to use to carry out his murderous revenge...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 1 November 2009]

This is a good pre-code example of a horror film that must have shocked audiences in the early '30s and still carries enough punch to find favor with today's horror addicts.

LIONEL ATWILL is at his wickedest as a cold-blooded owner of a zoo full of wild animals, everything from snakes to panthers. The story starts overseas with him doing an unusual sewing job on one of his victims after catching him kissing his wife, then switches to their return on a ship where his wife is fearful that a young man who has taken a shine to her (JOHN LODGE) will be his next victim.

Atwill catches them having an intimate chat and we know he's found a man he must eliminate in a cruel way. It goes on in this fashion with the criminal getting away with murder until a clever lab technician (RANDOLPH SCOTT) and his assistant (GAIL PATRICK) are able to turn the tables on him.

TCM features a good print of this little thriller, way ahead of its time in some of its subject matter, a film that any fan of Lionel Atwill's kind of villainy will want to catch. And incidentally, Randolph Scott and Gail Patrick are excellent in good supporting roles.

Only drawback is the "comic relief" given to CHARLES RUGGLES who gives his weak material a good try but becomes more of an annoyance than anything else in the role of the zoo's new publicity agent.

It's worth one look

[InsideTheCastleWall · 5/10 · 12 September 2009]

Animals that kill on command could make a great horror movie but I wasn't impressed with this film.

Murders in the Zoo has a strong opening (can be found on YT) but the rest of the movie doesn't hold up.

I've read several reviews that call this movie "grisly" "chilling" "creepy" but I don't see it. To me it has very little horror to it at all. It's a mystery crime movie first.

**SPOILERS** one death scene has a woman fall into alligator infested waters and you see nothing except a piece of her clothing afterward. For another death scene a boa constrictor does what they do best. You would think a scene like that would be gripping but still nothing. Then there are some obviously tame and oppressed big cats released into a small area to act as a blockade while Atwill makes an escape. The cats run around scared and confused. You see a male lion attacking smaller cats like cougars and female lions. It's off putting.

Then this terrified actor is squeezing the life out of a snake for a scene where he extracts venom to create an anti venom. I was surprised the snake still had it's head when he was done.

Then there was a bumbling drunk running in and out of scenes for comedic relief which was really unnecessary and detracted from any macabre quality this movie may have had.

The last half of the movie dragged. It gave the impression that three months were spent filming the first half and one week for the last half.

Outstanding 30's Horror Fare

[BaronBl00d · 9/10 · 7 August 2001]

I am shocked,well, okay that word may be a bit strong, at a couple of the comments on here with regards to this film. This IS a great little horror gem that needs more press for its atmosphere and for the wonderful performance of Lionel Atwill. Atwill is amazing as a jealous millionaire/adventurer use to getting his way. The opening has Atwill, wife, and company in India and the Orient in search of wild animals for the Municipal Zoo, of which Atwill is a great benefactor. We soon see what kind of man Atwill is as he literally sews a man's lips shut and leaves him for dead in the wild, saying, "He will never lie again, nor will he ever kiss another's woman." Atwill then goes back to camp, questioned by his wife where this man is saying he just fled. His wife asks if he said anything about where he was going and Atwill replies in his wonderfully droll, sardonic manner, "He didn't say anything." It is this kind of black humour in Atwill's performance throughout the whole film that really helps this movie rise from some of its obvious flaws. Yeah, I know Charlie Ruggles got top billing for his comedic "drunk" routine. I rather liked it myself, but can see where it might get tiresome after awhile. Some of the other performers are very wooden including character actors like Harry Beresford and particularly John Lodge as yet another man trying to seduce(a fairly easy task given the promiscuous nature of Atwill's lovely wife)Kathleen Burke as Atwill's wife. Burke gives a decent performance but looks a whole lot better than she acts. A small concession this reviewer can live with. But the film belongs to Atwill all the way. As one reviwer noted earlier, his evil presence is in many ways comparable to Leslie Banks in The Most dangerous Game and Charles Laughton in The Island of the Lost Souls. Atwill is sadean to the point of complete lack of care for anyone but himself. The zoo is impressive and some of the best scenes are a dinner given amidst all the carnivorous cats and the bridge that goes over a pool of crocodiles. Also, watch for a great scene with Atwill and Randolph Scott where Atwill, holding the head of a mamba in a tissue, tries to prick Scott when he is not looking. Another gem of black humour. One big flaw is the mamba itself. It is a boa or a python. Cannot have everything. The MCA-Universal print is as clear as you will find. A great film with an even greater Atwill performance!

Randy saves the day!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 14 January 2018]

Despite the casting of comedian, Charlie Ruggles, as the go-getting lead of Murders in the Zoo (1933), it's actually Randolph Scott who saves the day, but not before villainous Lionel Atwill does his stuff!

I must admit I'm a sucker for movies set in a zoo, and this one is no exception despite the fact that we know exactly who the killer is right from the very opening shot.

Nonetheless, despite the hard task they set themselves by revealing the killer at this incredibly early stage, screenwriters Seton I. Miller and Philip Wylie do contrive at least two or three quite unexpected twists in the plot.

Director Eddie Sutherland is not the most stylish of the Hollywood crop, but he sure knows how keep the story moving along at an agreeable and always interesting level.

Comic scenes don't weaken this vintage horror.

[Greensleeves · 5/10 · 16 October 2005]

Some of the scenes in this movie are so truly horrific that you may be glad of the comic relief provided by Charlie Ruggles. Throughout the film there is a contrast between comedy and horror, the opening credits are humorous but they are immediately followed by an intensely horrific scene. Lionel Atwill is a superb villain and makes his fiendish character very memorable. His evil presence permeates the whole movie, leaving all the other actors in the shade. The climax is shocking and those who care about animals may find it upsetting. I would be surprised if all the animals in the movie survived the filming of the final scenes.

Classic casting blunder

[campfire · 5 June 2002]

There's a famous gag that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee. Murders in the Zoo is a good, creepy early '30s thriller with one design flaw so wrong as to sink the whole thing. Every thriller has a little comic relief character. In this one it's the zoo's publicist who is afraid of animals. But somebody came up with the bright idea of casting Charlie Ruggles in this role. Now Ruggles is basically a one-note comic actor who inexplicably attained name-above-the-title stardom. And with his name in the cast, suddenly this supporting role became the starring role. You can see all the places where scenes were added or expanded to give the character more screen time. But he is still just the comic relief--he is not involved in any way with any major development in the storyline. He could be excised completely and never be missed. Randolph Scott is the hero and Lionel Atwill the villain, and both acquit themselves admirably. But every few minutes the forward movement of the story comes to a screeching halt while we are treated to the antics of the "star", and so the poor camel never quite gets his gait. The film has some genuinely classic "horror movie" moments, but it would be so very much better with a reliable character man providing the "comic relief" instead of making this relatively insignificant role into a star turn (for ANY star).

One of Atwill's Most Venomous Performances

[LanceBrave · 7/10 · 23 November 2013]

In the 60s, Universal bought the rights to the pre-50s Paramount library. I don't normally consider these films part of the Universal Horror Cycle. However, occasionally a Paramount film will be shuffled into a collection with legit Universal Monster flicks. This film wound up in the Cult Horror Archive Turner Classic Movies put out a few years ago. Thus, it's inclusion here.

The Pre-Code Paramount horror films, like the previously reviewed "Island of Lost Souls" and "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," are notorious for their controversial content. "Murders in the Zoo" is no exception. The film starts with Lionel Atwill sewing a man's mouth close. While the actual act is obscured, we see the final results, the man's face dripping with blood, the sutures still raw. The rest of the film continues in this grisly fashion. Atwill plays a big game hunter/zoo owner who uses the animals in his zoo to dispose of enemies. His unfaithful wife and her lovers give him reasons to kill, as do the zoo staff's attempts to investigate the deaths.

There are plenty of sympathetic characters: A snake vet played by a young Randolph Scott, his love interest/lab assistant, and Atwill's terrified wife, played by Kathleen Lloyd, formally Lota the Panther Girl. There's even comic relief in the form of Charlie Ruggles, the zoo's press secretary, a recovering alcoholic terrified of the animals. He is fairly amusing throughout, especially when locked in a cage with a black mamba. Either way, the default main character of the film seems to be Atwill's villain. It is one of his most venomous performances. The opening credits cut from various animals to the cast's face. Lionel is contrasted with a tiger. Indeed, Eric Gorman is a predator, his gaze steely, straight ahead, compassionless and precise, brutal. It's a marvelous performance, seals the movie's horror status, and flows correctly with the frequently brutal violence.

While the cast is great, the rest leaves a bit to be desired. The script has numerous plot holes. Atwill murdering his romantic rival at a fantasizing event for the zoo doesn't seem like a great way to stay in business. Neither is leaving dead bodies in the alligator pit where young children can find them the next day. However, Kathleen Lloyd running from her violent husband into the zoo isn't great planning either. And unleashing all the lions and leopards might be a good way to distract your pursuers, but if it ends badly you've got no one to blame but yourself. Along with the sketchy script, the direction is also somewhat bland and uniform.

It's not surprising that the movie is most remembered for its cruel violence. Alligator swarm onto a body. We see a deadly snakebite in close-up. A man is crushed to death by a boa constrictor. The lion-on-lion violence is genuine, making this an iffy choice for animal lovers. Still, the film has at least two note-worthy sequences. A scene of Lloyd sneaking around her husband's office, Atwill knocking at the door, generates suspense nicely. Near the end, Gail Patrick realizes very quickly that Atwill's intentions are malicious and deals with him accordingly. "Murders in the Zoo" is doubtlessly obscure but there's definitely some gems in here.

MURDERS IN THE ZOO (Edward Sutherland, 1933) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 12 April 2006]

Given my predilection for classic horror films, I have been interested in this one for ages but especially ever since I read Leonard Maltin's intriguing review and, having now caught up with it, I can safely say that it didn't disappoint. Actually, it ought to make a nice, indeed essential, addition to any subsequent Universal horror DVD collection.

Ironically, while Universal is the studio which instantly comes to mind when discussing the Golden Age of Horror, several of its rival production houses jumped onto the Horror band wagon and this one here is from Paramount, following in the wake of their other remarkable genre fare like the definitive screen versions of DR, JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1931) and ISLAND OF LOST SOULS (1933).

Lionel Atwill was apparently on a roll at the time (as witness his half-a-dozen appearances in horror-related pictures between 1932-3!) and this, playing a maniacal zoologist who gets his sexual kicks by dispatching his wife's real and imaginary suitors, is undoubtedly one of his finest hours; Kathleen Burke, then, follows her celebrated role of the Panther Woman in ISLAND OF LOST SOULS with a convincing portrayal of an alluring object of desire. As a matter of fact, as had been the case with Paramount's same year H. G. Wells adaptation, there is some pretty potent stuff in MURDERS IN THE ZOO for a 1933 film: the memorable opening sequence in which "Bob Taylor" is having his mouth casually sewn shut by a leering Atwill, the throwing of his distraught wife into an alligator pit and Atwill's own come-uppance at the 'hands' of a gigantic boa constrictor which, thanks to my personal fear of snakes, I found to be positively heart-stopping!

Randolph Scott and Gail Patrick make for decent if one-dimensional heroes and top-billed Charlie Ruggles (called Peter Yates in the film), while essentially the nominal star, has probably less screen-time than Atwill; while Ruggles' comic shtick is admittedly a matter of taste, it's not as distracting (or destructive) as some have claimed it to be and certainly on a par with other horror pictures of the time: it does take some getting used to perhaps, but it managed to amuse me on occasion.

Apparently, Edward Sutherland was quite a character in real life - including a spell as Louise Brooks' husband - but he is a most surprising choice for director here since he is more usually associated with comedy (particularly W.C. Fields vehicles but he also handled Mae West, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello along the way). Still, he acquits himself quite admirably, so much so that Sutherland was hired by Universal to replace James Whale on DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936) when the latter kept egging his screenwriter R. C. Sheriff to greater (and censorable) excesses thus ensuring his removal from the project!! Eventually, Sutherland too left the production but Universal would subsequently retain his services for another "horror" film but in a much more overtly comedic vein, THE INVISIBLE WOMAN (1940), which would eventually reunite him with Charlie Ruggles!

Zoological Intrigue

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 2 November 2009]

(There are Spoilers) Mad zoologist and big game hunter Eric Gorman has this thing about anyone who as much as looks at his wife Evelyn, Kathleen Burke, that has him simply go wacko! We get to see a glimpse of Eric's murderous jealousy at the start of the movie when he has fellow big game hunter and trapper Bob Taylor's mouth sewed up and, with his hands tied, left in the jungle to be eaten by the wild animals that live there! What was Taylor's crime? He was caught, by Eric, giving Evelyn a friendly kiss!

Back in the states with a shipload of wild animals from India and South East Asia, including at least a dozen African lions, Eric is now obsessed in doing in fellow boat passenger Roger Hewitt, John Lodge, whom he knows is having an affair with Evelyn. It's Evelyn who's seriously considering divorcing her dangerous and unstable nut-job of a husband, whom she's just about had it with, and marrying Roger. Not wanting to be implicated in any murder that he's planing Eric decides to use the wild animals that he brought to the local zoo to do the dirty work for him!

The wild eyed and bushy hair, as well as a little bit nuts, Eric gets to the unsuspecting Roger at a dinner for the opening of his zoo exhibition with a deadly green mamba whom he uses, under the table, to bite the poor guy as he's having his dinner. Dropping dead almost on the spot, mamba venom is among fastest acting and deadliest of all killer snakes, it becomes apparent that the mamba was accidentally released by Dr. Jack Woodford who was at the time milking the killer mamba of it's venom, in his laboratory, to develop a antidote for it! Knowing that he had the mamba security locked up in its cage Dr. Woodford suspects that Eric, in the way he behaved at the murder scene, may well have used a second deadly mamba to murder Roger!

**SPOILER ALERT** As it soon turned out the mamba was in fact totally Innocent of killing Roger! Eric used its venom, in some weird contraption he invented, to stick it to Roger and get him both out of his hair and is wife's Evelyn's life! It's when Evelyn found out what Eric did in having her lover Roger killed, and threatening to go to the police, that later that evening Eric had her dumped into the crocodile pool at the zoo where she ended up as the hungry crock's moonlight snack! It's when Eric tried to murder, with the mamba venom, Dr. Woodford that his crazy plan finally backfired on him. Not knowing that Dr. Woodford had already developed an antidote to the venom and his girlfriend and lab. assistant Jerry Evens, Gail Patrick, on the scene to administrate it to the unconscious Dr. Woodford Eric was caught flat footed and exposed for his crimes.

Knowing that the jig is finally up for him Eric tried to make his getaway by releasing all the caged animals to be used as cover for his escape. Ending up in the safety of a cage himself with the lions leopards tigers as well as hyenas tearing the entire zoo apart Eric found to his surprise and shock that he wasn't the only one locked in! He had a cage-mate who hasn't eaten for weeks if not months and Eric couldn't have come at a better time for him, or it, to finally have its long delayed meal!

Entertaining and macabre horror classic

[The_Void · 7/10 · 6 June 2006]

Released in the same year and by the same studio (Paramount) as the classic 'Island of Lost Souls', Murders at the Zoo understandably has been left by the wayside; but still it's an interesting film and makes a great companion piece for the aforementioned Dr Moreau adaptation. As the title suggests, the film takes place at the zoo. The zoo isn't often used in horror films, but it makes for a great location for one to take place as there's always so much going on and the animals create a chilling atmosphere on their own. Murders at the Zoo makes good use of its beastly cast members, as animals such as lions and tigers are spectacular, and as they're given a lot of screen time; it's always nice to see. The plot itself isn't particularly original, but it manages to take into account the location and the zoo animals nicely. We follow an expedition lead by Eric Gotman into the jungle in order to capture some animals for the zoo. One expeditionary doesn't make it back, however, as after getting too friendly with the leader's wife, he finds himself on the menu for the animals. And that's not the only murder to take place, as Gorman continues to put his specimens to use...

The first sequence is rather shocking especially considering the time in which the film was made, and while there obviously isn't any blood and guts on display; director Edward Sutherland succeeds in creating a macabre atmosphere and animals including snakes and crocodiles get to chomp their way through certain cast members. Lionel Atwill takes the lead role and commands the screen at his evil best. Atwill is an underrated talent when it comes to classic cinema, and performances like this show why. Kathleen Burke (The Panther Woman in Island of Lost Souls) is his opposite number, while comic actor Charles Ruggles provides comic relief. His performance doesn't appear to be too popular, but in all honesty; he didn't annoy me too much. The film is well paced throughout, as there's always a standout moment not too far away, and it all boils down to a fitting and exciting climax. The film is not as great as many classics that were released in the early thirties, including those coming from Universal as well as The Mystery of the Wax Museum and others; but Murders at the Zoo is well worth seeing for fans of classic horror.

Superior Little Shocker

[Ron Oliver · 10/10 · 5 May 2001]

A madman commits a series of MURDERS IN THE ZOO, hoping to punish his adulterous wife and her lovers.

Sadly neglected, this dandy little thriller comes from a studio & director (Paramount, Edward Sutherland) more noted for their comedy films. It holds its own, however, and offers several visual shocks which should more than satisfy its audience. Especially noteworthy are the opening credits which humorously compares the human stars with various zoo beasts, and sweeps immediately into an initial scene of unusually fiendish ferocity. From this point on, the viewer is hooked...

Lionel Atwill adds another portrait of evil to his gallery of grotesques, here playing a villain not only morally twisted but positively vile. The gentle, daffy humor of top-billed Charles Ruggles might seem out of place in other horror films, but here it is a welcome anodyne to Atwill's monstrosities.

The rest of the cast - Randolph Scott, Gail Patrick, Kathleen Burke, Harry Beresford - do very well in roles that are really little more than supporting parts. Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Jane Darwell as a society matron at the Zoo Supper.

A Chore To Sit Through, Even At 60 Minutes

[abooboo-2 · 4/10 · 10 April 2001]

There are times when you read Leonard Maltin's reviews and you legitimately have to wonder if he simply picks an opinion out of a hat and applies it to films at random, without actually having seen the film in question and with no regard for its true level of quality whatsoever. Because unless a director's cut of this picture exists containing another 30 minutes of absolutely brilliant footage, there is no way this crudely filmed, flat, indifferently scripted piece of tedium could possibly rate 3 stars.

Other than an early shocking visual and a fairly brutal "FREAKS" style climax that must've been difficult to pull off without someone getting hurt, there is hardly an indication that this is even a horror film at all. The director chooses a jaunty, innocuous tone and appears far more interested in Charlie Ruggles' lame comedic antics than creating an atmosphere of dread and terror. Its only saving grace is Kathleen Burke, who plays Lionel Atwill's never quite frightened enough wife. Though perhaps not the greatest actress, she is staggeringly beautiful.

I do, however, have good news for the other post who laments that they don't make them like this anymore. Actually, they do. In animated form, no less. Try just about any episode of "SCOOBY DOO".

Neat story of a madman's reign of terror

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 30 August 2016]

This rarely-seen film is astonishingly gruesome for the time in which it was made, especially when compared to the other popular horror films of the time, like Dracula, which merely hinted at depravity and had all the violence occur off screen. Not so with MURDERS IN THE ZOO, a film which opens with a man having his lips sewn together for a minor misdemeanour, a stark moment designed to shock an audience hungry for blood. I'll bet that the opening moments got a few people fainting in the aisles, after all, they probably never expected anything like it.

Today the film is worth seeing not just for the shocks, but for the characterisation too. Gorman, the central character, is a husband whose insane jealousy of any man his wife flirts with leads him to coldly murder all involved. Lionel Atwill plays Gorman with just the right glossy sheen of respectability, hiding all the oozing evilness underneath with ease. Atwill gives a wonderful performance, really adding strength to the character, when he might just as well have been an over-the-top maniac. Just watch Gorman entertaining dinner guests above the table while underneath it he stabs venom into a rival's leg, killing him. I would say that this film shows Atwill at his best, a man whose coldly calculating mind is finally outwitted by a triumph of science, an anti-toxin which returns one of his victims from the dead.

The use of a zoo as a setting is an interesting one, and allows for plenty of footage of lions and snakes to pad out the running time. Although there is a low body count, the deaths are inventive, with Atwill planning them intrinsically to make them look like accidents. The supporting cast is a good one, with Kathleen Burke (the panther woman from ISLAND OF LOST SOULS) making a striking heroine, and Charles Ruggles manages to be amusing, although I could have done without his non-stop comic relief. I know that most of these early films had wisecracking reporters prowling around, but this comedy goes on and on throughout the film, balancing uneasily with the grisly murders occurring - in fact, it almost seems like it should belong in a different film.

Another plus is the extremely short (sixty minute) running time, which keeps things flowing along smoothly and never lets up with the action. The film is at it's best when shocking the audience, either with the aforementioned mouth-stitching or the bit where Gorman drops his wife into a pit full of crocodiles which proceed to gobble her up (other films would have cut away at this point, but not this one). Atwill's terrific performance is just the icing on the cake in this neat story of a madman's short reign of terror.

Just ridiculous

[marcslope · 3/10 · 3 November 2009]

One of a wave of macabre little "Frankenstein"-inspired horror programmers from the early '30s, this botch has some atmospheric zoo photography (the city is never specified) but is deficient in most other respects. About a mad zoologist who kills anyone who dares to get near his luscious and flirtatious wife, it stars Lionel Atwill, who looks like he's having fun, but whose character makes no sense. Check out one scene where he first professes his undying love for his spouse, then makes sadistic overtures to her, then laughs at her, then kills her. He murders many (and the opening sequence, dispensing with one of her suitors, is quite creepy), in such a way that we can't believe he would ever attain the zoological prestige the script conveys. Young Randolph Scott is another near-casualty, and as his girlfriend, Gail Patrick, so good in later nasty comedic roles, looks bored. Charles Ruggles, as the "comedy relief" publicist, has only two character aspects--he drinks, and he's afraid of animals--and his material falls terribly flat. There are a couple of good animal sequences, including a climax where the evil doctor springs lions and tigers from their cages (and it looks as though animals WERE harmed in the making of this movie), then, in the next sequence, they're safely back, and we're never shown how that happened. The plotting is jumpy, and at 62 minutes, one suspects a lot of continuity was cut.

A man scorned.

[st-shot · 6/10 · 29 March 2022]

Put upon philanthropist, zoologist Eric Gorman (Lionel Atwill) finds himself pre-occupied with snakes (one being his cheating wife) in this quickie B horror. Brief but biting, Gorman allows the animal kingdom to do his dirty work while playing a welcome supporter of the zoo.

The film opens on safari in Indo China where Gorman has just dealt in grisly fashion with one of his serial adulteress wife's lovers. Back in the States he brings a rare black mamba for research to a zoo while wife Evelyn plots with another lover to split on him. Once again Gorman deals with him in diabolical fashion. When his wife rejects his sexual advances he deals with her in a more heavy handed fashion. Meanwhile a zoo doctor (Randolph Scott) threatens to expose Gorman who goes to extremes to prevent it.

It's feeding day at the zoo as alligators and snakes feast on a human menu fiendishly orchestrated by Gorman. For some odd reason Charlie Ruggles in a supporting role tops the bill but it is Atwill who walks away with the picture. Coldly sadistic, pathetically romantic, only the cheating wife can garner him a scintilla of sympathy.

Ernest Haller once again provides stellar lens work, especially in the nocturnal setting of the zoo. Ed Sutherland direction along with the editing is weak in spots, watering some some suspenseful moments down but overall this trip to the zoo provides a fair share of thrills and chills along with probably Atwill's finest villain.