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.

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.

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!

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.

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.