Murders in the Zoo

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.