Murders in the Zoo

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).

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!

While not on the creepy level of Edgar Ulmer's "The Black Cat", this film shows that a studio OTHER THAN Universal was trying to make horror films in the early thirties. I will agree that Charlie Ruggles' tipsy clowning tends to diffuse the genuine horror of the situation, but this seems to almost have been a requirement of horror films of thirties, as this same type of character is found in "Mystery of the Wax Museum", and "Doctor X", both films starring Lionel Atwill. Maybe they just wanted to offset Atwill's natural creepiness, eh? At any rate, A big kudos to MCA/Universal for even releasing this film on home video, and for using one of the most beautiful prints I've ever seen! Now, if we can just get them to put out MURDER BY THE CLOCK...

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.

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.