Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

alexanderdavies-99382 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.

Leofwine_draca This rarely-seen film is astonishingly gruesome for the time in which it was made, especially when compared to the other popular horror films of the time, like Dracula, which merely hinted at depravity and had all the violence occur off screen. Not so with MURDERS IN THE ZOO, a film which opens with a man having his lips sewn together for a minor misdemeanour, a stark moment designed to shock an audience hungry for blood. I'll bet that the opening moments got a few people fainting in the aisles, after all, they probably never expected anything like it.Today the film is worth seeing not just for the shocks, but for the characterisation too. Gorman, the central character, is a husband whose insane jealousy of any man his wife flirts with leads him to coldly murder all involved. Lionel Atwill plays Gorman with just the right glossy sheen of respectability, hiding all the oozing evilness underneath with ease. Atwill gives a wonderful performance, really adding strength to the character, when he might just as well have been an over-the-top maniac. Just watch Gorman entertaining dinner guests above the table while underneath it he stabs venom into a rival's leg, killing him. I would say that this film shows Atwill at his best, a man whose coldly calculating mind is finally outwitted by a triumph of science, an anti-toxin which returns one of his victims from the dead.The use of a zoo as a setting is an interesting one, and allows for plenty of footage of lions and snakes to pad out the running time. Although there is a low body count, the deaths are inventive, with Atwill planning them intrinsically to make them look like accidents. The supporting cast is a good one, with Kathleen Burke (the panther woman from ISLAND OF LOST SOULS) making a striking heroine, and Charles Ruggles manages to be amusing, although I could have done without his non-stop comic relief. I know that most of these early films had wisecracking reporters prowling around, but this comedy goes on and on throughout the film, balancing uneasily with the grisly murders occurring - in fact, it almost seems like it should belong in a different film.Another plus is the extremely short (sixty minute) running time, which keeps things flowing along smoothly and never lets up with the action. The film is at it's best when shocking the audience, either with the aforementioned mouth-stitching or the bit where Gorman drops his wife into a pit full of crocodiles which proceed to gobble her up (other films would have cut away at this point, but not this one). Atwill's terrific performance is just the icing on the cake in this neat story of a madman's short reign of terror.

AaronCapenBanner Lionel Atwill stars as insanely jealous big game hunter Eric Gorman, who mercilessly kills any man who shows the least interest in his beautiful(but unfaithful) wife Evelyn(played by Kathleen Burke). After brutally leaving one such suitor for dead in the jungle where he was collecting zoo animals, he once again finds a man showing interest in her on the ship back home, so plots to kill him at the zoo where he works, then he'll target his wife too... Charlie Ruggles, in an entirely unrelated subplot, plays the "recovering" alcoholic who is also scared of the animals! Alternatingly grim and grisly, yet dull and comedic, film never finds a consistent tone, and is otherwise unappealing.

theowinthrop I first came across this film in a review in one of William Everson's compendiums of horror film classics. He spoke quite highly of it, but until tonight I never had seen it.MURDERS AT THE ZOO has the plus of Lionel Atwill as a big game hunter named Eric Gorman. He is quite an expert on deadly animals and brings them to the zoo in the city he lives in. But his wife Evelyn (Katherine Burke) has a way of attracting younger, and handsomer men to her attention. Atwill is fiendishly possessive and jealous, and proceeds to kill any man who is having an affair with his wife. But he uses his knowledge of the wild and animals (he later explains he loves animals because of their honesty regarding their feelings, including kill or be killed) to destroy these men. We first see him tying up and leaving a man in the jungle to be destroyed by man-eating tigers. But first he sews the man's lips together so he can't lie or kiss another man's wife (or call for help). A close-up of the man with bloodied, threaded face is briefly shown on camera.On the voyage back home from India Burke meets an American traveler played by John Lodge. Lodge and Burke begin an affair (which Atwill soon is aware of). Atwill pretends he is unaware of it, and invites Lodge to a dinner party (to raise funds for the zoo - this is the depression). At the party Lodge dies, the victim (apparently) of the bite of a green mamba snake that Atwill brought back from India which may have escaped from it's cage. The person that was responsible for the care of the new acquisition is Randolph Scott, here not in his normal western milieu but playing a reptile expert. Scott, with assistant and girl friend Gail Patrick, is struggling to create an anti-toxin for snake venom, particularly those of the deadly Mamba snakes. Atwill jumps to the conclusion that Scott has been criminally negligent regarding watching this deadly snake, and wishes to press charges against him. However, Burke is less willing to believe Scott is responsible, and soon is aware of who is responsible...which is not healthy for her.The use of a deadly snake for killing purposes goes back to Conan Doyle and "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" in the first collection of Sherlock Holmes short stories. But the character I found interesting here is Scott, the reptile man at the zoo. It is hard for us to realize but in the 1930s Americans were still fascinated by the world of zoos and aquariums and the people who searched for or dealt with rare animals. Frank Buck's book BRING 'EM BACK ALIVE described his adventures hunting and trapping dangerous animals (it was a big best seller). The career of Clyde Beatty, as an animal trapper specialist, was followed and led to his career as a circus entrepreneur. But another figure of interest in New York City (which apparently is the city in this film) was Raymond Ditmars, who was in charge of the reptiles in the city zoos and was a recognizable authority on snakes. It is probable that he is the basis for Scott's character (especially in searching for anti-toxins). Atwill gives one of his finest performances here, Gorman's fascination with animals being as important as his sexual insanity (hinted at by his weird, occasional smiling stares and Burke's obvious disgust at him). The acting is competent, particularly Scott and Patrick. There is this problem I find with the fans and opponents of poor Charley Ruggles. Playing an alcoholic reporter trying this last chance job as a publicist, Ruggles is drunk in a couple of scenes (not through the entire film), and has a very funny moment when he finds himself next to the missing green mamba snake - leading to a request for information that could only appear in such a film prior to the real enforcement of the code on movies. He plays a major role in finally bringing Atwill to book at the end. And his last appearance (although drunk) is a curious counterpoint to his Major Applegate in BRINGING UP BABY only four years later.I only have one real problem with this neat little movie - how did Atwill contrive to use his "weapon" without being observed by the people at the dinner? It never is really explained.