Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ****

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!

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.

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).

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.

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".

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...