IMDb RATING
6.4/10
1.9K
YOUR RATING
A monomaniacal zoologist is pathologically jealous of his beautiful but unfaithful wife Evelyn and will not stop short of murder to keep her.A monomaniacal zoologist is pathologically jealous of his beautiful but unfaithful wife Evelyn and will not stop short of murder to keep her.A monomaniacal zoologist is pathologically jealous of his beautiful but unfaithful wife Evelyn and will not stop short of murder to keep her.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win total
Charles Ruggles
- Peter Yates
- (as Charlie Ruggles)
Nancy Crowley
- Little Girl at the Zoo
- (uncredited)
Jane Darwell
- Banquet Guest
- (uncredited)
Samuel S. Hinds
- Banquet Guest
- (uncredited)
Carmencita Johnson
- Little Girl at the Zoo
- (uncredited)
Cullen Johnson
- Little Boy at the Zoo
- (uncredited)
Ethan Laidlaw
- Policeman Reardon
- (uncredited)
Howard Leeds
- Telegraph Messenger
- (uncredited)
Edward McWade
- Dan Baker - Zoo Guard
- (uncredited)
Bert Moorhouse
- Apartment Desk Clerk
- (uncredited)
Edward Pawley
- Bob Taylor
- (uncredited)
Lee Phelps
- Banquet Photographer
- (uncredited)
- …
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaOn its initial release, this film was banned in Germany, Sweden, Latvia, and Quebec, Canada. It could only be released with cuts in the United Kingdom, Australia, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Ontario.
- GoofsGorman invites Hewitt to the benefit dinner, which he says will be on Thursday. Moments later, we see a printed invitation, which says "Wednesday".
- Quotes
Eric Gorman: Mr. Gates, never be afraid of a wild animal. Let it alone, and it'll leave you alone. That's more than we can say of most humans.
Peter Yates: You mean that you really like these, eh?
Eric Gorman: Beasts? I love them. They're honest in their simplicity, their primative emotions... They love, they hate, they kill.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Svengoolie: Murders in the Zoo (2016)
- How long is Murders in the Zoo?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Murder at the Zoo
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 2m(62 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Mono(Western Electric Noiseless Recording, original)
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content