CommentsXp
Best movie ever!
Dirtylogy
It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.
Josephina
Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.
trlrprkgrl
The subject matter of this documentary is an answer to a question I've been mulling over for quite awhile. "How old has THIS old Hippie gotten to be?" You understand, don't you? When I was a teen, in the 70's, I thought of my parents as "Old fashioned to the point of stupidity". I wondered "when would I become my parents"? With this film I know "that time has arrived" because do not have ANY sympathy or empathy with these perverts and don't understand the schadenfreude who DO empathize and show it with their "Several Star" ratings. I DO NOT agree that "Great cinematography" or "Great Music" or anything else makes this "Voyeurs Dream film" any more palatable to people who have any sense of propriety. THIS old hippie wonders "when will a Serious, Documentary film about "NAMBLA" be produced?" Don't say NEVER my friends. Had you asked me in the 1970's, "will a SERIOUS, non-pornography, documentary film, about having sex with a horse, ever be produced?" My answer (after laughing to the point of pain) would have been "HELL NO!!!!" "ARE YOU @%&*%$ STUPID?????"
Emma Nøddespæk K Winona
The narrative, from the people's point of view was very touching. The scenery and pictures were beautiful, and often made you forget about the grimness of this freak accident. I did not watch the last 20 minutes or so, because i got interrupted, and did not feel like resume watching this documentary, because of how understated the whole matter seemed to be. I would have liked some more factual things, for it to work as a proper documentary, since i am more used to the "Zeitgeist" part of the documentary-genre. Another thing i sort of missed in this movie, was some guiding - either by some sort of objective narrator or by some more relevant pictures, rather than pictures of woods and a guy on a greyhound bus. However, I really liked this movie for being so visually "clean" and for sticking to the relevant people and places. Another thing that i really liked, was the convincing acting of the "stock-footage" actors, so overall a well-done movie. 5/10 Best Intentions - Emma
tomgillespie2002
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
zulus88
How should one approach a film that ostensibly cracks open, one of the last, shameful taboos of a modern society? Most likely reason for anyone's interest in Zoo will be its daring theme. But it's neither a study of bestiality nor one man's fascination with it. Zoo tries to reach deeper, beyond a single event. It's attempt is admirable but film itself lapses into deep uncertainty about its intentions.Zoo follows the tragic death of Kenneth Pinyan, who in July of 2005 bled to death after suffering a perforated colon due to an anal penetration by a full-sized stallion. Pinyan's death, led to a legal prohibition of sexual intercourse with animals in the state of Washington and enraged the authorities, seeking for the responsible of an assumed animal abuse.It's a film of uncanny, spellbinding beauty. But each skilfully composed frame, actually takes us further away from a problem that is essentially, less philosophical and more academic. Its controversy escalates on the grounds of state and social conduct and although is touched upon in the film, through numerous fragments of radio commentaries, it is never truly pursued. Devor instead, seems to be fascinated by a mythical connection of a man and an animal and the emotional substitute it becomes for otherwise desolate human relationships. The idea seems forced upon the unclear events leading to Pinyan's death and with the lack of any substantial reasoning, simply very silly.In his inversion of Jungian animus into the conscious and an attempt on spiritual rationalization, film, ironically, looses most of its humane values. Exploration of Pinyan's motives only comes from people who are unable to closely relate to him and therefore consist a relevant source. And because the subject matter will seem vulgar, disturbing or for some deeply inappropriate, viewer is left with no real understanding of his actions and no real clue as to who Pinyan was. Haunting visuals are bedazzling but without any true narrator it is easy to quickly lose track of the numerous characters and the order of the events. This leaves little interest in the event itself as we have to constantly struggle to separate dreamy fiction from the truth and often, make out our own sense of what Devor is showing.Because of its oniric form, as a microscopic exploration of a single event on its spiritual plain Zoo might emerge as deeply meaningful, even nuisansical but it inevitably delivers too little of a wider context, for its documentary zest. Its greatest fault is how insubstantial it is. At the end we are left more confused than enlightened.Verdict: It's more tender and restrained than its controversial content might suggest. But it's also convoluted, hard to follow, and ultimately, not thorough enough, to provide a relevant spectrum of Pinyan's fascination. But its stunning imagery is bedazzling and unforgettable. More of a provocative meditation than intellectual clash, Zoo is an art-house documentary that for many will be hard to swallow rather for its nebulous form, than the bold theme.2.5/5
