IMDb > Zoo (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Zoo More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 50 reviews in total 

121 out of 164 people found the following review useful:

A humanizing look at something awful

Author: Adam Donaghey from United States
30 April 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

75 out of 109 people found the following review useful:

An understanding view of something almost impossible to understand.

Author: ben-1580 from United States
7 March 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Eerily beautiful

Author: Howard Schumann from Vancouver, B.C.
4 November 2007

Zoo is not a docudrama about caging animals but about having sex with them. The film, directed by Robinson Devor, comes out of an incident in 2005 in Enumclaw Washington, a rural community 45 miles southeast of Seattle in which a Boeing engineer died as a result of a perforated colon after having anal intercourse with an Arabian stallion. Known only as Mr. Hands in the film, the deceased man was a divorced father of a young son with a top level job who used his weekends as an escape from a suffocating life style. Since Washington law at the time allowed sex with animals, no one was charged with a crime.

While few object to depriving animals of their freedom in zoos or sending them to slaughterhouses to be ground up for hamburgers, the thought of men having sex with animals stirs up reservoirs of righteous indignation and the incident became fodder for the media and Internet message boards which approached it with typical scorn and ridicule. Devor uses a combination of audio interviews with actual participants and reenactments from actor stand-ins to attempt to shed some light on what actually happened. The film delivers neither judgment of the practice nor evaluation of the psychology behind it but simply raises the question whether zoophilia is simply another form of sexual orientation or whether it constitutes abuse of a being incapable of giving consent.

Shot in muted colors, Zoo has a lyrical and poetic style with a moving sound track that gives the film an air of something forbidden but also something eerily beautiful. Bringing a taboo subject out of the darkness and subjecting it to some light, the film allows us to reexamine our preconceived notions about a practice that has in fact been going on since Ancient Greece. Opening with an interview with Coyote, a coal miner from Virginia who came to Washington to meet like minded friends, the film examines the phenomenon of the "zoophile" community, a group of isolated individuals where such appetites are shared. The men gather at all night parties, talk about their love for animals, and engage in an activity they consider natural but which the rest of the world frowns upon. After he was identified as a participant, one man asks how he could be a good man yesterday and a bad man today but the question remains unanswered.

We hear the voices of some of the members of the group but only Jenny Edwards of the organization "Hope for Horses" speaks directly to the camera. While the thrust of her remarks are humane, her participation in a dramatization of the gelding of the horse involved is disturbing and is certainly done without the horses consent. Zoo neither endorses sex with animals nor condemns it but simply empathizes with the humanity of the participants who, for one reason or another, prefer anonymous sex as Richard Gere put it in Pretty Woman, "without all the emotional hassles" of relationships. By doing so, the issue is removed from the level of abstraction and the death is made heartbreakingly real.

Was the above review useful to you?

36 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

There's less here than meets the eye

Author: rdekoch from San Francisco
27 May 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Moody exploration of zoophilia in Washington State

Author: fertilecelluloid from Mountains of Madness
10 May 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you have ever seen the "Mr. Hands" video, you will get more out of this film. "Mr. Hands" was a short video depicting a man having anal sex with a horse. Suddenly, the horse thrusts violently into the man and ruptures his colon. He died several hours later of internal bleeding. The man was part of a Seattle-based group of zoophiles who met occasionally in a non-judgemental environment where they would discuss and indulge in their fetish for animal love. Robinson Devor's examination of this group uses audio recordings, on-camera interviews, and actors to recreate the events that led up to the death of Mr. Hands, a father of one and employee of Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer. What's so amazing about this doc is the cinematography by Sean Kirby and the brilliant score by Paul Mathew Moore. Devor uses these powerful elements to create a deliberately discomforting vibe to accompany his always interesting revelations. Although the director scoots around the precise details of the Mr. Hands incident, he packs his film with fascinating detail and even-handed debate. The film explores what zoophilia (animal love) is and avoids demonizing its subjects. Although I found the recent British TV doco, "Animal Passions" (also reviewed), a more thorough exploration of this incendiary subject with unbelievable on-camera interviews, "Zoo" is effective for the atmosphere and sense of time and place it creates. Highly recommended.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

Horseback-riding… Only, in reverse!

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls
26 February 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Dreamy documentary that fails to convince

Author: NJtoTX from Austin, TX
25 May 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Zoo is a dreamy, slow-moving documentary about those who "love" animals and the fraternity that developed to make it possible for others to do so. It tries just a little too hard to show a sympathetic, understanding and otherwise balanced view of this activity. It's almost as if this were a film assignment given to the filmmakers, i.e. "your task is to take this activity, as well as the death involved, and convince the class to empathize and sympathize with those involved." Just in case you don't get the point of view espoused by the film and the awareness it wants you to attain, it ends with the one person close enough to the animals, a female veterinarian, stating her newfound understanding of these people. The extra prod did not sway me, and as such, Zoo fails at an impossible task.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 54 people found the following review useful:

unintentionally funny

Author: possiblyj from nowhere
31 October 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

29 out of 49 people found the following review useful:


Author: Nickolas52 from Canada
3 October 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Does this film add value? Nayyyyyyyyy!

Author: Kashmirgrey from United States
17 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Zoo is a documentary based upon the true story of some perverts who meet on the internet and form a club for like-minded perverts out in the country where they can engage in sexual acts with animals. One of the perverts, a Boeing engineer by day, bleeds to death after his abdomen is ruptured during his having sex with a horse. The surviving perverts cower in shame and attempt to rid themselves of the video evidence of their perverse activities. Law enforcement discovers the videos. The perverted club is disbanded and its members retreat in shame utilizing this film as a forum to whine about getting caught.

The film is well-made in respect to its photography and the unsettling mood the soundtrack and dialogue project. I found the film quite moving when I considered the poor Mr. Hands who died. However, I am even more saddened when I consider his poor surviving family members who continue to suffer for his indiscretions and the shameful legacy he left behind.

Yes, the film is undeniably effective if you are one of those individuals who believes we must tolerate and "attempt to understand" what sickos do in the privacy of their bedrooms, homes, or in this case, barns. The Sundance Film Fest judges hailed the film as a "humanizing look at the life and bizarre death of a seemingly normal Seattle family man who met his untimely end after an unusual encounter with a horse." Humanizing. I wasn't quite sure what the judges were attempting to convey with this term so I looked up the verb on and this was the definition: "to make humane, kind, or gentle; to make human; to become human or humane." Then I clicked on the Thesaurus tab and I got the following suggested synonyms: adorned (to lend beauty to); advancing; "broadening"; "dignifying", elevating, enlightening; "edifying (to instruct or benefit morally or spiritually)"; socializing; "stimulating"; "ennobling"; influential; "promoting", and my absolute favorite... inspirational! Many reviewers have commented that Zoo was very non-biased and objective, however, the bias of the film was blatantly in your face. It merely took the politically correct and touchy-feely stance of "tolerance".

My heart (along with other anatomical regions) truly aches for the man who was so lost and died a "death by horse c@&k", but I will never tolerate the diversity of Sally's love for Lassie, Frank's passion for Seabiscuit, or Johnny's affections for Flipper. Personally, I think that makes me pretty damn normal and human! No matter how Zoo attempts to spin it, sex with animals is for the birds.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history