Murders in the Zoo

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.

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).

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.

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 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.