Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
Murders in the Zoo More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 4: | [1] [2] [3] [4] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 32 reviews in total |
15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
He's the zoo keeper!, 4 August 2010
Author:
Justin Stokes from Cleburne, TX
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.
14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Outstanding 30's Horror Fare, 7 August 2001
Author:
BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC
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!
9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Superior Little Shocker, 5 May 2001
Author:
Ron Oliver (revilorest@juno.com) from Forest Ranch, CA
A madman commits a series of MURDERS IN THE ZOO, hoping
to punish his adulterous wife and her lovers.
Sadly neglected, this dandy little thriller comes from a studio
&
director (Paramount, Edward Sutherland) more noted for
their
comedy films. It holds its own, however, and offers several
visual shocks which should more than satisfy its audience.
Especially noteworthy are the opening credits which
humorously compares the human stars with various zoo
beasts, and sweeps immediately into an initial scene of
unusually fiendish ferocity. From this point on, the viewer
is
hooked...
Lionel Atwill adds another portrait of evil to his gallery
of
grotesques, here playing a villain not only morally twisted
but positively vile. The gentle, daffy humor of top-billed
Charles Ruggles might seem out of place in other horror
films,
but here it is a welcome anodyne to Atwill's monstrosities.
The rest of the cast - Randolph Scott, Gail Patrick, Kathleen
Burke, Harry Beresford - do very well in roles that are
really
little more than supporting parts. Movie mavens will recognize
an uncredited Jane Darwell as a society matron at the Zoo
Supper.
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Definitely worth a look!, 11 April 2001
Author:
George R. Willeman from Culpeper, VA
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...
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Fangs for the memory, 13 March 2011
Author:
Gary170459 from Derby, UK
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It starts improbably with lions in a South East Asian jungle and Lionel
Atwill sewing up the mouth of his wife's latest lover, leaving him to
die helplessly. Not nice! And it gets even better, in what is a
delicious hour and a minute from Paramount in their wonder period of
1930/4.
A tale of insane jealousy leading to murders and in what passes for
that now endangered species, a zoo, although obviously backlots and
back projections abound in a rather darkly atmospheric mix. The main
characters run true to typecast: Randolph Scott as the clever handsome
good guy with ever-grinning Gail Patrick as his clever and loyal
sidekick, Charles Ruggles as the well-meaning bumbling buffoon and
Atwill as the manic sex fiend (hmm…). This was probably his best ever
performance – witness his wide-eyed and frantic lust for his wife after
he'd killed another of her boyfriends. Although just how it was done is
still a mystery to me. Atwill was eaten up by jealousy but was
eventually eaten up by alligators – how poignant!
Years ago my then little daughter and I loved this one and it still
holds up well as a wicked little suspense film, lovely and creaky, full
of horrid humour and a cast who looked as though they enjoyed
themselves making it.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Paging Raymond Ditmars, 1 November 2009
Author:
theowinthrop from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Classic casting blunder, 5 June 2002
Author:
Marvin Jones (campfire@earthlink.net) from Los Angeles, California
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).
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Snakes And Tigers And Gators Oh My, 31 October 2009
Author:
bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
Three murders are committed during this film, two of them are indeed
Murders In The Zoo. The problem for the authorities is that they're not
murders because animals leave no forensics to tell any tales. Well
almost.
Lionel Atwill is a brilliant zoologist, tops in his field and an
insanely jealous man. To be sure he's got reason to be, Kathleen Burke
is not the most faithful of wives. In this before the Code classic it's
really hard to tell whether Atwill was insane by nature or she's driven
him that way because of her infidelities.
Because of his knowledge of animal habits and methods of killing,
Atwill can hide his homicides and blame them on the zoo animals he's
captured for Harry Beresford's zoo.
Two great character actors dominate Murder In The Zoo. Of course Lionel
Atwill who graced so many of the best Gothic horror tales is perfectly
cast as the jealous husband who's doing in all potential rivals.
Charlie Ruggles is also great as the alcoholic former newspaperman who
is on his last job as the zoo press agent. His nervous little everyman
is great for comic relief. All that was really needed was Mary Boland
in the film as the domineering wife to Ruggles which she played in so
many Paramount classics.
A couple of younger players with big things destined for them both in
front and behind the camera, Randolph Scott and Gail Patrick are the
romantic interest. John Davis Lodge future Governor of Connecticut and
Ambassador to Spain plays one of Burke's suitors who is dispatched
quite cleverly.
No monsters in this film, the most terrifying thing on this planet is
the mind of mortal man run amuck out of jealousy or ambition. That's
what Murders In The Zoo has in abundance.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly Well Done, 28 November 2008
Author:
bababear from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'd recorded this on Chiller a long time ago and just got around to
watching it tonight. This is a really good little piece of work.
Dr. Gorman's insane jealousy drives him to murder anyone he suspects of
trying to take his wife away from him. While on safari he stitches a
suspected rival's lips together and abandons him in the jungle.
Returning to the states, he dispatches one potential rival with snake
venom. When his much younger wife gets wise to him he feeds her to the
alligators (interestingly enough, the zoo has just a simple wooden
bridge over the pit where they live).
Eventually his misdeeds catch up with him. In a very effective scene
Gorman turns a bunch of lions loose to stop the police who are pursuing
him. He then runs, soon pursued by the lions, and finds safety in an
animal cage. Wouldn't you just know it! He forgets that the cage he's
found shelter in houses a huge snake, and what you expect to happen
does.
The chase scene is surprising in that there's no pulsing music to
emphasize the action. The ringing of an alarm bell, the roar of the
lions, and very effectively used silence when Gorman is being pursued
are more effective than any music that could have been used.
First and foremost, this looks great. The print is crisp and sharp. The
sets are elaborate- these were probably standing sets on the Paramount
lot that were redressed for the film.
It's handsomely photographed by Ernest Haller, who you might remember
for a somewhat more upscale film a few years later. You may have seen
it: GONE WITH THE WIND.
It's made clear from get-go that Gorman is the killer. Lionel Atwill
always played the bad guy. Take a few minutes on IMDb and check out his
tragic life story.
Charlie Ruggles was a very popular actor at the time. He gets top
billing as a booze addled loser who gets a job doing public relations
for the zoo. To my thinking his part could have been eliminated
completely, but he doesn't do a huge lot of damage.
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Lionel Atwill puts zoo specimens to use to carry out his murderous revenge..., 1 November 2009
Author:
Neil Doyle from U.S.A.
This is a good pre-code example of a horror film that must have shocked
audiences in the early '30s and still carries enough punch to find
favor with today's horror addicts.
LIONEL ATWILL is at his wickedest as a cold-blooded owner of a zoo full
of wild animals, everything from snakes to panthers. The story starts
overseas with him doing an unusual sewing job on one of his victims
after catching him kissing his wife, then switches to their return on a
ship where his wife is fearful that a young man who has taken a shine
to her (JOHN LODGE) will be his next victim.
Atwill catches them having an intimate chat and we know he's found a
man he must eliminate in a cruel way. It goes on in this fashion with
the criminal getting away with murder until a clever lab technician
(RANDOLPH SCOTT) and his assistant (GAIL PATRICK) are able to turn the
tables on him.
TCM features a good print of this little thriller, way ahead of its
time in some of its subject matter, a film that any fan of Lionel
Atwill's kind of villainy will want to catch. And incidentally,
Randolph Scott and Gail Patrick are excellent in good supporting roles.
Only drawback is the "comic relief" given to CHARLES RUGGLES who gives
his weak material a good try but becomes more of an annoyance than
anything else in the role of the zoo's new publicity agent.
| Page 1 of 4: | [1] [2] [3] [4] |
Related Links
| Plot summary | Ratings | External reviews |
| Plot keywords | Main details | Your user reviews |
| Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.