User reviews

I appreciate that the filmmaker is going for more than shock, but I'm not sure what this film really has to offer. It's clear that the filmmaker has some sympathy for the zoophiles, but as a whole, the film is mess. It's beautifully filmed. Almost every frame is mesmerizing, but it feels distracting rather than enlightening. The impeccably filmed images work to mask a lack of insight. Not a terrible film, but the novelty of the subject matter will bring it more attention than it ultimately deserves. It's also derivative. It borrows heavily from Errol Morris. It's probably better than most stuff out there now. At least I saw it instead of Georgia Rule.

Based on the case of a Boeing employee who died from a perforated colon while being anally penetrated by a horse in Enumclaw, a town in rural Washington state, "Zoo" (the term is short for zoophilia, the sexual love of animals) is a brave attempt to address a highly controversial and polarising issue in a dispassionate way that neither condemns nor sympathises with the people involved in bestiality. The film recreates the events leading up to the man's death and its aftermath in a way that's part documentary / part drama with re-enactments of scenes and emphasising a soft, dream-like mood with delicately muted, wafting music. Director Devor uses four narrators, talking to an unseen listener, to retell the events from the point of view of the people who knew the man, referred to in the film as "Mr Hands", and this approach thrusts (um) the viewer right into the twilight world of zoophiles: how they found each other through Internet contacts, how they organised their tryst and their reactions when the man was injured and when their secret activities became known to the outside world.

The film has the air of a noir mystery: the majority of scenes are filmed in shadow, at night or in dark colours with blue being predominant. The story unfolds slowly and elliptically and anyone who is unaware in advance as to what the film is about may be puzzled at the indirect way "Zoo" tiptoes around the subject until near half-way when a news report drops its headline in deadpan style. The pace is very steady, perhaps too steady and slow, and the film often dwells on several still camera shots which look deliberately staged as if for static display purposes. Close-ups and landscapes often look very abstract with washes of blue across a background; an orchard looks like a misty fairyland beneath a light coating of rain. The mood is even and quite blank until a scene in which police investigators viewing a DVD recording appears; the police react with horror and shock watching the act of buggery and only then do viewers feel something creepy crawl up their spines.

For all its delicacy, "Zoo" gives the impression of something much bigger than its subject matter struggling to make itself seen and heard: the zoophiles give the impression of wanting companionship, a sense of belonging, a need to share something special that gives meaning to their lives, and thinking they have found it. They seek a utopia in which everyone is equal and no-one is judged by how much money s/he earns or how educated s/he is. The places in rural Washington where many of them live look impoverished and some zoophiles may well be drifters or marginalised people barely managing to make a living and survive. (Difficult to tell as many scenes are recreations of actual events with actors playing the zoophiles.) If the film had directly addressed the need of the zoophiles for meaning, for companionship, it might have been able to gain more co-operation from the people involved; as it is, the level of co-operation it got is very restricted. The dead man's family refused to be interviewed for the film which is a pity as the wife and child might have presented him as more well-rounded than he appears in "Zoo".

The film also suffers from subjectivity and could have done with a more objective view of its subject. Interviews with psychologists and psychiatrists on zoophilia and perhaps other conditions such as lycanthropy (identifying oneself as an animal rather than as a human) might have shed light on why some people are sexually attracted to animals and to some kinds of animals in particular. The goals of the project would still be met: the issue would not be sensationalised and viewers might come away with a greater understanding of zoophilia and other bizarre philias. Instead the film can only concentrate on the horse-trainer, Jenny Edwards, who took charge of the horses after the incident became public: she admits that after having followed the case in its detail and ordering one of the horses gelded, that she's "on the edge" of understanding the zoophiles' obsession. It appears also that the director and film-crew were as much in the dark as Edwards was while making the film; even after its completion, the film-makers still were scratching their heads trying to make sense of what they'd done. Not a good portent for a film.

Yes, zoophilia is a difficult subject to talk about, let alone film, without making it look disgusting, degraded or ridiculous and pathetic. "Zoo" tries hard not to take one side or the other but with a subject like this, the attempt to be "balanced" is a tough act indeed to pull off. Some viewers will be irate that the film advocates no position at all, as if it's the film-makers' duty to tell them what they must believe. I think though that to achieve the "balance" that "Zoo" strives for, the film-makers should have pulled back from their subjects and taken a more generalised view of the issue of zoophilia; the police officers, the courts, psychologists and medical who dealt with the dead man and his friends should have been consulted for their opinions about zoophilia.

This documentary presents itself and it's subject matter so seriously and so earnestly as to teeter on the edge of becoming self parody.The film is given an arty treatment with very stunning cinematography and subdued narration.The narration is rather oblique and clouds the theme, most likely in an attempt to keep you watching and asking yourself what the hell is this.The filmmakers sincerity at attempting to present these people in a sympathetic light doesn't really work it actually comes across like surreal dark humor.I think It's probably because bestiality is so far from the average persons experience.If you look at other touchy subjects like pedophilia as aberrant as it is the average person knows it exist.We've all heard about the Mexican girl and the donkey but know one really thinks that it happens, I don't think the the public is willing to accept people who have sex with animals and this film gives know real reason why anyone should.I give the filmmakers kudos for attempting this,even though the end result is jaw droopingly weird.I give the film a 7 because it gives Eraserhead and Visitor Q a run for there money.

Actors silently recreate controversial true-life events which took place in Washington State near Puget Sound when a family man died a shameful, incomprehensible death: he successfully managed to get a horse to have sex with him, resulting in internal injuries. Called zoophilia, this act of sexually bonding with an animal not of the human variety is the basis for this entire production and yet is tiptoed around in a most facetious, irritating, and finally dreary manner. The audio interviews with actual persons connected to this story fail to flesh out the narrative, what with clueless lines such as: "These were animals I loved. I wasn't breaking any laws." True, at that time, Washington did not have laws on the books regarding bestiality (which has since been rectified), but we are never made to understand this obsession. This "classless society" of men is envisioned here as members of a secretive sect (mysteriously filmed), and what we hear on the soundtrack are the murmurings of troubled and regretful lost souls. The swooping, gliding cinematography is handsome, but only serves to make the overall effect rather drowsy. The subject matter, though wanly dissected, isn't for the faint of heart...but if you're going to do a documentary-styled take on a small circle of zoophiliacs, you might want to figure out in advance what point you want to make. Director and co-writer Robinson Devor obviously didn't want to venture too far out into unchartered cinematic waters, yet his hesitance is much more of a turn-off than his theme. *1/2 from ****

This documentary, which tells the story of a man who died after an encounter with a horse, does go some way to presenting the views of both zoos (people who have an affinity with animals which stretches to engaging sexually with them) and animal welfare experts. However it does not present anything salacious or revealing, nor does it go into any real analysis of why some people have these needs and feelings.

As an investigative documentary, I feel it fails on this level. As a piece of sensationalism, it fails - as there's nothing here really to offend. It's a shocking story in many ways but the way it is presented is so detached you can't feel anything for the people involved, even a slight curiosity or interest.

I found this Youtube, thank God I didn't pay for this. It's exactly what you think it is.

A documentary about a guy getting anally penetrated by a horse and then dying as a result. Also, there's other interviews with other Zoophiles. Yes, they are just as pathetic and creepy as you think they are. They attempt to justify their behavior by flimsy excuses. "It's natural." "These horses aren't coerced." "We love them like family." As though having sex with an animal isn't something one can control. It's society's fault, not theirs, that they are judged.

These animals are trained to have sex with their handlers, but these men claim otherwise, despite there being tools in the barn contrary to that.

They claim horses react to human male sex hormones and this results in mounting. Yeah, I have no idea either.

That's my main problem with this film. The men who are, largely, responsible for a man's death do not feel guilt. They feel unjustly judged. They let a man die on their property, but that's the thing that gets to them. Their animal brothel is shut down, and that's what prompts their outrage.

These men are creepy, sound creepy. There is nothing romantic about having sex with an animal. Thank God, they including the horse's new handler Jenny to say 'Yeah no, that's bullshit.' She's a blessing. XD

An interesting movie if you have an hour or two to waste, and you can find it for free.

The visuals and music of this documentary could have come from an inspirational or motivational movie. Amazingly, it comes from something as estranged as this subject matter. "Zoos", as they're known, is a shortened form for zoophile; they are people who have an amorous and sexual interest in animals.

This documentary delicately approaches the secret lifestyle of those who engaged in this activity at a Washington state horse ranch around 2005. After a rambling start, it ultimately focuses on those who associated with a Boeing engineer named Kenneth Pinyan. He died of "internal injuries" related to "interaction" with a horse.

Just as a good, atmospheric horror movie can put your mind on hold while it glosses over things that you would normally object to, so too does this movie. There's a lot of indirect talking, smoke and mirrors, etc. that get you off your guard and caught up in the beautiful imagery and music... so don't get too carried away with the film-making aspect... remember what it's about.

Subject matter aside, it is a bit long-winded. There's a bit too much dialog (mostly scripted with actors) about each person's generic philosophies. It's OK at first, but then it sounds a bit like pointless rambling. Even though it's an unusual subject matter, I can't really recommend watching this because I'm not sure what you'll get out of it... I'm not quite sure what I got out of it.

Zoo is probably as tasteful a movie as can be, given its bestial subject. For those of you who aren't aware, there's a small population of the world who prefer the love of an animal--both mentally and physically--over the love of a human. This film stylistically recreates the life and death of one horse lover, Mr. Hands, and his pack of animal molesting friends, during one of many meetings and BBQ's in a small town near Seattle. Mr. Hands died from internal injuries, caused by the numerous and repetitive thrusting of the enlarged member of a stallion into his anus.

The film is tasteful because it's not sleazy. In this respect, it's almost worse on the audience because it humanizes these so-called animal lovers. What you'd think would be more like a shockumentary, more than anything else, really becomes a shallow dissection of a zoophile's playful mind. It's certainly not psychological, nor really in-depth; but its shallowness really makes it that much more grim.

As I watched the film, I felt like a voyeur peering into the lives of ordinary human beings doing absolutely bizarre and reprehensible things--and they just talked about it as if it were as benign and workaday as eating a bowl of cereal or taking the dog for a ride (insert pun here). Yet, much like a pedophile talking about his love for children, these zoophile's innocently and sincerely spoke about their love for animals.

Initially concerned about the content of the film, I left the theater without witnessing the exploitation or mockery of bestiality, nor did I see anything graphic or overtly sexual. I did leave the theater a little sickened, however, because I didn't loathe Mr. Hands or his friends. In fact, I somehow sympathized with their pitiful plight.

Upon getting hold of a copy of Zoo, my girlfriend asked me what it was about. I ummmed and aaahhh before informing her that it is in fact a documentary about a man who died from internal injuries, caused by having sex with a horse. That's putting it nicely. I may have even used the phrase 'bummed to death'. She then asked me why I would want to watch a film about such a thing. I couldn't reply. The fact is, since Zoo was released back in 2007, I had been dying to see it. I don't know what that says about me. Perhaps it's revealing my disturbing levels of curiosity about all things that shouldn't really be discussed. Anyway, I had the last laugh, as the film is genuinely very good.

On a small farm in King County, Washington, groups of men would get together every now and then to escape their hectic lives and family. They would talk, drink, joke and play games together. They also had one thing in common - they were in love with horses, and enjoyed having sex with them. When a withdrawn character called Mr. Hands arrived at the farm, the men were curious. He seemed unsure and unattached. In 2005 he was rushed to the hospital, dying of internal injuries. He subsequent death caused a media storm and the investigation uncovered the farm and what was happening there. The state was forced to immediately pass laws against bestiality and the recording of the act.

While it would be quite easy to make a joke of the situation, or to make a straight-laced documentary uncovering the seedy goings-on at the farm and the incident that later became known as 'the Enumclaw horse sex case', credit must go to director Robinson Devor for creating something entirely different. It was completely not what I expected. Zoo is a mysterious, dreamlike documentary that allows its real-life participants to give their point of view over slow-motion reconstructions of the incidents. It's a brave artistic move that never feels pretentious or meaningless.

I can only describe the feeling of the film as a mixture between Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line and Andrew Jarecki's Capturing The Friedmans. It had the slow-building, crime-oriented feel of the former, and the storyline that you just can't quite believe actually happened of the latter. It's a fine mix and works surprisingly well given the taboo subject matter.

In regards to the subject matter, it is handled both sensitively and with an air of curiosity. It allows the participants on the farm to tell their story, and doesn't misrepresent them in a way to make the viewer feel disgusted. Not to say that I didn't feel that way. Hearing these men talk about having genuine feelings of love for the horses, and relating to them on a basic, animalistic level just made me pity them. Not to say that I wasn't fascinated by what they had to say.

A strange, hypnotic film about a shocking and unbelievable incident. I urge people to see past what the film is about and allow themselves to be moved by this quite unique film.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

I am puzzled to find so many comments that are positive about this. To describe something so grotesque as "beautiful." I remember hearing something about the actual incident but I had always written it off as urban legend. Now I find that they made a documentary about it. I love documentaries but to make one about the rape of defenseless animals is beyond reprehensible. I tried to find more information on the internet about the actual incident but could find less information than about the movie they made about it. I had never even heard of this movie until now. This is rape people. Not natural in the least. I don't see how anyone is anything but repulsed by this.

Aside from the cinematography, which is outstanding, this documentary is not worth watching. The subject obsession is incomprehensible, if not reprehensible. While I can certainly feel compassion for the man's family, I can only shake my head at what he subjected himself to, time and time again. What can a man be thinking to allow a half ton animal to mount him and shove its two foot long penis into him?? For those of you who are tempted to download and watch the actual footage of the featured encounter (which is flashed briefly a few times in the film itself) my advice to you is don't. I have to admit that I allowed my curiosity to get away with me. Now I wish I could unwatch it.

It's as if the creators of Zoo attempted to legitimize bestiality by depicting it as some sort of mystical nature-bonding experience.

Actors portray the story of the events leading up to and following Kenneth Pinyan's death, as snippets from interviews with those involved are used to narrate.

The film has a surreal, dark feel accomplished by the use of abstract camera work, dim lighting, and a soundtrack that sounds like it was produced by Boards of Canada. Though these techniques produce a somewhat interesting aesthetic for the film, they feel like a feeble attempt to mystify or romanticize the world of horse f*cking.

Despite the film's attempts to create a surreal, brooding atmosphere and the grizzly facts of the story, the absurdity of the film's subject matter is at times laughably funny. In one memorable scene, news helicopters circle the farm of two Zoophiles. Knowing the gig is up, one man grabs a bucket of horse porn and runs frantically into the horizon. I nearly fell off the couch laughing.

Never before I have seen a documentary like "Zoo". It's not just because of its unusual subject but more so due to the way it got filmed. This is such a beautiful documentary to look at, that doesn't take any of the other classic and familiar documentary making approaches.

The documentary and all of its events are entirely acted out by actors and perhaps a couple of people who were involved by the real life events but I'm not even sure about that. It doesn't feature any dialog but only narration by some persons who were involved with the real life events and yes, that I'm sure off. It has one big advantage that this is an acted out documentary, since it allows director Robinson Devor to set up every scene beautifully. It's really an amazing directed movie that is also incredibly nice looking, with great cinematography and also a good musical score, that all help to set the mood.

It's also not necessarily a straight-forward told documentary. People are just recalling their personal feelings, thoughts and experiences of that time. You can easily start watching this documentary and half way through still have no idea what tragic event has happened or were the documentary is leading up to. There is not one main storyline or person that this documentary is following, which can make this confusing to watch for some people, I'm sure. You constantly have to pay attention to start to figure out what happened. I kind of liked this unusual and original approach, since normally documentaries really aren't part of the most original genre and only are too often different to watch by just its subject.

But still, this documentary isn't really featuring a subject that works out in its own advantage. It's a bit of a still controversial subject and I don't think that this documentary does anything to break this particular taboo, since I don't even think that this was the documentary its goal. And that's also a bit of a problem; I don't even know what this documentary its goal was and what it was trying to achieve. Perhaps it tries to create not sympathy but some understanding for its subject but its unusual approach of its storytelling don't really allow this to ever work as anything effective enough. The documentary is memorable because of its looks but is not powerful and just doesn't impress with its subject.

So you could say that this is a case of style over substance but in this particular case I can take this and accept this documentary for what it is. I'm definitely willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and recommend it to people, since it still manages to do something so beautiful with such a controversial and gross subject.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

What job as a film maker is harder than to show the human side of something most would agree is so perverse as to appear unhuman? This film delves into the psyche and social constructs of a group of people and depicts it in such a way that I can honestly say I understand WHY it happened. I don't sympathize personally, but the characters were made human in a way I truly didn't think would be possible to portray. Even if you don't agree (and most won't) with the sentiment of the characters involved, and even if you find the subject matter abhorrent, you honestly could view this film and walk away with something useful from the experience.

I recently caught the film "Zoo" and noted that it portrays bestiality members as normal people and victims of an unfair world... a world who does not understand their lifestyle (much like the homosexual debate). This film seem to gloss over the real psychological issues behind people who choose this life. The psychology aspect into deviant sexuality is non-existent. Though in todays time it is still fashionable for society to ridicule and hate human animal relationships, but sooner of later the cries of these people will grant them the same acceptance that homosexuals are slowly getting today.

Psychology has abandoned any public research into the reasons behind deviant sexual practices, because of the public pressures during the 70s protests. For some reason or another we've thrown our faith into genetics as a means to define a persons sexual orientation. We don't use genetics to explain murderers, child molesters, homelessness, and other unorthodox social lifestyles, so why is homosexuality given a pass? Just some food for thought.

The similarities between homosexuals and bestiality lovers is uncanny! Take a look at the Cleveland Street Scandal in London... Homosexuals were criminalized much like bestiality lovers are today!

The only thing I can credit Zoo for is setting a decent atmosphere and the cinematography.

The movie did manage to handle a touchy and perverted subject in an amazingly well done fashion, however it tells half of the story. We hear from people involved, people in to the zoo fetish, but where are those who are concerned about the effects on the animals? There are some obligatory 'what is your opinion' style interviews and a few minutes on laws banning beastiality. I was hoping for a more balanced documentary.

The wording and flow also leave everything quite shadowy. I had never heard of this happening and was watching at the behest of a friend who is in to the 'lifestyle' and wanted to humor him. So perhaps I'm biased in my opinion.

I've just seen many documentaries on things I don't support or don't agree with but they're done much better than this one.

Please don't let the graphic title of this user-comment mislead you (I just couldn't resist writing this), as "Zoo" is – in fact - everything but an exploitative and perverted excuse to finally revolve a movie on the controversial topic of bestiality. As strange as it may sound, this documentary/drama is actually very sober, tasteful and not the least bit disrespectful towards people with peculiar (to put it mildly) sexual likings. Robinson Devor, the young and clearly promising young writer/director of "Zoo", based himself on real events as they occurred in Seattle in 2005. A middle aged and divorced man died there as a result of internal bleedings after – and here comes the kicker – experiencing sexual intercourse with a horse. The media promptly jumped onto this story and in practically no time the authorities unraveled a small but nevertheless fanatic network of people who regularly gathered for a weekend of beer, pizza and … animal sex. The "shocking" news spawned a giant debate and even some riots because apparently there weren't any laws against bestiality in the state of Washington at the time and all sorts of animal rights organizations launched hate-campaigns. Rather than to bluntly categorize the Zoos (short term for Zoophiles) as sick & twisted individuals as well, Devor's film digs a lot deeper into their pasts and personalities. The documentary primarily depicts these Zoos as confused and introverted people with a devoted affection for animals. Of course this doesn't justify their sexual preferences, but at least you don't simply label them as a bunch of perverted freaks. In the hands of any other random exploitation-filmmaker, "Zoo" probably would have existed of nothing more than images of slavering rednecks cheering and queuing to bend over in front of a horse. There isn't a single explicit shot to be found in "Zoo" and the story hardly even hints at sleaze or schlock. If anything, you almost feel like Robinson Devor is to blame for patronizing & protecting these Zoophiles too much, but then still you don't as they already suffered more than enough scandal in various other media. The narrative and filming style of "Zoo" is also quite original and refreshing. The on screen characters are, with the exception of some supportive ones, hired actors but the guiding voice-overs come from actual interviews with the real Zoos. The bitterness and noticeable martyr-tone in their voices gives a whole unique dimension of realism to the film. The photography is truly enchanting and the sober music, oh my God the music, literally sent cold shivers down my spine. Regardless of the questionable subject matter, "Zoo" is a dreamy & highly elegant film that comes with my highest possible recommendation.

Looking through the reviews of this film, it seems some people give it a bad score because they disapprove of the subject matter, but it doesn't look like anyone just gives it a bad score purely as cinema. So let me be the first.

Sometimes you know a movie is going to be bad from the first 15 seconds, and this is one of these films. Beginning with a long, artsy shot combined with a tedious minimalist modernist score, the film tries to scream IMPORTANT and succeeds in screaming PRETENTIOUS. The movie then plays interviews over recreations of scenes, those recreations being tedious and uninteresting.

The movie also doesn't begin by telling you what it's about. I'm not sure when it does get around to that, because after a few minutes I knew there was no way I could get through this. I decided to fast forward and see if the movie ever got anywhere, and I kind of get the impression that by the halfway point they were still talking around what happened. I could be wrong, since it would be insane to do that (especially since most people watching would have some idea of the subject matter), but anytime I slowed down and took a look it was just more tedious, banal talk about nothing in particularly over arty cinematography.

This seems less of a documentary than of a musing upon a subject.

Normally if I've only watched five minutes of a movie I don't rate it, because I think it's unfair to effect the movie's overall rating if I don't know what I'm talking about. But I'm making an exception for this one, because it's pretentious student film maker approach is just too utterly agonizing to give a pass to.

Why is no one else saying this? The only review I saw that took the filmmaker to task for any of the bad film-making mainly was a lunatic diatribe against "liberals" and "homosexuals." Horrible movie. I can't believe it's got such a high rating.