just watch it!

Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Despite the casting of comedian, Charlie Ruggles, as the go-getting lead of Murders in the Zoo (1933), it's actually Randolph Scott who saves the day, but not before villainous Lionel Atwill does his stuff!I must admit I'm a sucker for movies set in a zoo, and this one is no exception despite the fact that we know exactly who the killer is right from the very opening shot. Nonetheless, despite the hard task they set themselves by revealing the killer at this incredibly early stage, screenwriters Seton I. Miller and Philip Wylie do contrive at least two or three quite unexpected twists in the plot. Director Eddie Sutherland is not the most stylish of the Hollywood crop, but he sure knows how keep the story moving along at an agreeable and always interesting level.

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.

Murders in The Zoo represents Lionel Atwill at his evil best, and is a film that just about beat the rigid enforcement of the Hays Code. Many of the horror set pieces would never have made it past the censors had the film been released in 1934 and though they may be tame today must have given contemporary audiences quite a horror kick.Atwill plays Eric Gorman, a millionaire hunter- trapper busy procuring specimens for a large Metropolitan Zoo in French Indo China. Gorman possesses quite a jealous streak and at the opening of the movie is seen stitching the lips together of a Lothario who tried to kiss his wife! Whether it's using the venom of a Green Mamba to get rid of another love rival, feeding his wife to the alligators to prevent her going to the police or releasing wild animals to hamper his pursuers Atwill is a hoot. There's sterling support from Kathleen Burke as his long suffering wife, and Randolph Scott - his second horror appearance after Supernatural! - as a young toxicologist. This less said about Charles Ruggles' publicity agent the better.Preposterous? Certainly! Entertaining? Definitely! Give Murders in the Zoo a spin and you'll be engaged, amused and possibly even a little shocked. The opening is pretty gruesome even by today's standards...

There are very few films that I have waited as long to see as I have Murders in the Zoo. I've been aware of the movie for something like 40 years, but for whatever reason, just watched it for the first time a couple of nights ago. So, was it worth the wait? Overall, I'd say yes. The film features Lionel Atwill at his absolute best. He's an overly possessive husband willing to take the most extreme measures imaginable to deal with any man paying too much attention to his wife (played by the incredible Kathleen Burke). During his career, Atwill played a variety of mad characters, but few could top the decidedly evil Eric Gorman. The almost gleeful manner in which he toys with his intended victims – not unlike a cat "playing" with a mouse – is a joy to watch. You can all but see the psychosis in Atwill's eyes. And what Gorman does to his first victim is the stuff of classic horror movie legend. If you're an Atwill fan, this is one you don't want to miss. Unfortunately, Murders in the Zoo is almost done-in by the ridiculously unfunny performance of Charles Ruggles. Ruggles, playing the worst sort of comic relief imaginable, actually managed to be higher billed and have more screen-time than Atwill. Whose idea what that? If the rest of Murders in the Zoo weren't so good, I could easily see dismissing the film based on Ruggles. He really is as bad and annoying as you've read.