Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Wordiezett So much average

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

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

Scarecrow-88 Normally the mere mention of bestiality has me immediately heading in the opposite direction. It creeps me out to just think about it. That said, director Robinson Devor's moody photography and use of music makes his documentary, Zoo, stimulating visually and aesthetically despite the provocative subject matter. It's about an air traffic controller whose pals are a small group associating at a farmer's large farm, sharing a dark secret to themselves..each member of this small group of men have affectionate sex with horses! You know, in this day and age, the way people worship and adore their pets, perhaps zoophilia(..a scientific term for people who REALLY love their animals)isn't as shocking as, say, 50 years ago. Devor uses actors in the roles of those certain individuals involved in the case of a man who died of internal bleeding after repeated sex with horses damaged him physically. When news broke out about this, a media storm changed the lives of those who committed these "concensual" acts with horses forever. Through audio interviews, the filmmakers actually allow us to be the judge, giving all those involved an opportunity to express their true feelings. In other words, Devor approaches the subject from all sides, while shooting scenes of the place using actors, richly capturing developed scenarios as they probably happened during the time leading up to the unfortunate demise of a rather melancholy man who found solace with a horse. While I may've been repulsed at the idea that men participated in such acts with horses, I was in awe with how Devor presents the story to us, taking us through what might've happened. Devor goes as far as creating a character for the man who died, his name, "Mr. Hands." Mr. Hands is treated rather enigmatic, with those who knew him even coloring him ambiguously.

Ed I simply couldn't believe how self-indulgent others could be.I am speaking of the zoophiles, of course, but mostly the stupidly pretentious film maker. A contrived Philip Glass-ish score and the faux moodiness showed me this director fancies his creation as the next Koyaanisqatsi. It is hysterically terrible, in that regard, absolutely from start to finish.Folks, this movie is about a group of people who love their animals more than you love yours. Yep. More than you.These people are hard-core liberals. Peacenik and conspiracy radio and what passes for leftist 'intellectual' fun abounds in this silly brooding homosexual real-life fantasy.You see, the guy that gets dead from receiving more love from his animal than you have from yours was an employee at Boeing with a Top-Secret clearance. He saw the light, though, and became a treasonous, leftist, homosexual zoophile. He and his band of merry animal lovers shared EVERYTHING with each other. It is clear from the dialogue that the now-departed has left his leftist, zoophile buddies with info that no one should have. What a guy! The long, backlit overblown shadowy film work and the crap Phil Glass imitation is *absolutely* over-the-top. Fake 'Heavy-ness' saturates every scene.The despised female that ultimately captures the killer horse immediately castrates him, but then in laboriously hilarious dialogue explains to the viewer her conversion to see the zoophile's side of the matter. Now, she probably has nightmares that she gelded that stallion because, at bottom, she deprived another ?man? from receiving more 'horse love' than you ever will!Well, since there's a leftist traitor to his country that gets it in the end, I almost raised the score to 2 stars... Nah.

paul2001sw-1 On learning of a man who died of a perforated colon after sex with a horse, one is tempted to heartlessly nominate him for a Darwin award. Or to join with the radio show host, who commented after someone proposed making such acts illegal on grounds on non-consenuality - "it was a horse! how can it not have consented?". I would certainly have expected the world of zoophilia (the politically correct name for bestiality) to be all about the thrill of the (utterly) transgressive. But this documentary, in which a number of zoophiles involved in the incident defend their conduct, gives a different impression: of men (why only men?) whose sense of empathy with animals is so strong that a sexual relationship feels like a natural next step. Of course, one could criticise this film for letting them speak unchallenged: one would not allow paedophiles a similar platform, but if one regards desiring a consummated relationship with a horse as wholly baffling (a horse may be intelligent, but it's still just a horse), then the horse can hardly be seen as a victim in the same light as a human, and the opinions of the perpetrators are as fascinating as they are disturbing. On one hand, one's tempted to see zoophilia as a form of psychiatric disturbance; on the other, should people be persecuted for what they feel? Wikipedia quotes studies alleging that sexual contact with an animal is experienced by several percent of the population. I don't quite believe it, but in part, maybe that's just because my innocent mind still has problems imagining how it actually occurs.