List Price: $27.98Your Price: $24.99 You Save: $2.99 (11%)Prices subject to change.
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Audience Rating: Unrated
Binding: DVD
Brand: Image Entertainment
EAN: 0821575552653
Format: Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
Label: Velocity / Thinkfilm
Manufacturer: Velocity / Thinkfilm
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Velocity / Thinkfilm
Region Code: 1
Release Date: September 18, 2007
Running Time: 76 minutes
Studio: Velocity / Thinkfilm
Theatrical Release Date: 2007
Editorial Review:
Product Description: An extraordinary glimpse into the life of a seemingly normal seattle family man whose secret sexual appetites lead to his shocking death. This explores the enxuing media coverage & public outcry that uncovered a secret community of zoophiles who call themselves zoos. Studio: Image Entertainment Release Date: 09/18/2007 Run time: 76 minutes
Related Items:
see more
Customer Reviews
Average Rating: 
Rating: - Unwatchable
Um, I purchased this video to see if I can understand what drove Kenneth Pinyan to his "hobby" and ultimate end. I got no insite from the film.
The script is non-existant, the camera work is basic, acting is amature, no video editing skill evident, the sound quality is sub-par. Only was able to watch it for about 10min.
I think it's film award was a creul prank.
Rating: - More
Not for everybody but Interesting and Appealing. I could see why someone would do this. Would like to view the original filmed videos anybody know where one might get them?
Rating: - An interesting case on a subject that is not oft heard of
I guess buying all those other documentaries has ultimately led me down this path. I do quite enjoy documentaries, particularly about nature, history, and astrophysics... then there's this one. When this first hit my recommendation list I initially thought it was something about zoos or animals, just goes to show my general naiveté on this topic. Of course I read the description, and sometimes it's hard to be a curious fellow, but I really wanted to see what this was all about regardless of ratings. I confess that the general topic of bestiality is something that interests me, but particularly from a psychological level. I've read a few other books on aberrant sexual behavior, probably one of the most well known is "The 120 Days of Sodom" and while this is not a scientific book, it does have a great deal to read into and think about without the bias of some scientists. I've also read "Rogue Messiah" which relates extreme religious cults with a penchant for outrageous overpowered sexual behavior. I guess I'm saying this because I don't want to be labeled as something I'm not and pointing out that the subject in general is something that interests me.
That being said, I was rather disappointed in the documentary. I had never heard of this case until I stumbled upon this film and I think it's presented in a way that requires people to have a decent amount of foreknowledge about the case. For someone like me it felt kind of disjointed and I really don't like the way it's been kind of thrown together. I would've preferred a solid fifteen minute introduction into what prompted this documentary, going over the case and news etc. However, they don't do that, instead they stick to this clandestine ominous feel throughout the documentary with a strange soundtrack that lends to this feeling. Something is going on? Something very abnormal by society's standards... what could it be? This is how it feels to watch this. Towards the end I learned what happened and I think I know why they filmed it this way. Basically it feels like this film tries to engender sympathy for the Zoo's that were chastised for their involvement even though Mr. Hands, who died, was fully consenting to what he did with the horses.
While I think they failed on all fronts to make me want to go hang out with these fellows and be friends, I am glad it gave the subject neutral treatment overall. I have actually gone to further lengths to peruse some forums that cater to this kind of interest, for as the documentary points out, the internet is what brought everyone together. Anyway, one thing struck me as I was reading through the forum; there are many that take this as a sexual orientation. I have to be honest, this never occurred to me before. I always considered that it followed down a path of fetishism, which is something I can identify with a little more. But in that form the objects or actions are what a person responds to, a lot of these people speak of love as if to a regular human mate. Personally, I'm neutral on this subject, to be perfectly frank. I don't care if you think it's sick or disgusting, many people say this about homosexuality or transvestites.
Based on a lot of things I've read and seen, I cannot deny the overwhelming motivator that is gratification of this sort. I have to try and see this documentary for what it is and try to see things from the world view of these people if I can ever hope to grasp some concept, and I have to question myself. If this was the only way I could ever actually have real pleasure in this world would it be worth the risk? Sure, you'll naturally go through motions of trying out the normal stuff society deems acceptable, but what if that's not enough and you keep searching. Eventually you end up in a very lonely state and the need builds up until you have to follow through. It's not necessarily insanity, it's just that you know what you need is out there and it's in your power to obtain it and perhaps share in that lovingly. So at that point you just weigh the risk. Is it better to be shunned by society for something that makes you feel loved or not? While I'm not about to go track down a local barnyard personally, I do understand to a degree, because even desires that may be considered tame are still shunned by society. Even bondage, which has become more readily practiced today, is still considered, by and large, an abnormality by the greater populace. Many people shun this, but as the concept becomes more and more mentioned people become desensitized to the subject. I'm not a psychologist, but as others have mentioned, I wish they would have included some commentary from one on this documentary, because I would really like to know the answer to "is this a legitimate sexual orientation?" Society will yell a resounding "no!" and the Zoo's may yell a resounding "yes!" I have to admit, society can be wrong, it was wrong that the world was flat now wasn't it?
I know I went off tangent, but I couldn't help it, this documentary leaves way too many questions. Sure I know what happened about the case. I now know there is an animal abuse law on the books in Washington, in case this should happen again. But what I don't know is what really makes the human tick on this level. I don't care if you think it's wrong, or immoral, people are doing it. People are not only doing it, they are finding it a great pleasure and do it without regret. They take great care of their animals and love them dearly as you or I would love a spouse or a child, as the film states. I still want to hear some theories on why! But no one ever asked them that question, no one even tries to speculate here. It did get an extra half star for staying neutral on the topic and not condemning the people, instant condemnation doesn't necessarily give you honest answers and I doubt these people would've allowed themselves to be interviewed if they were being demonized. For that I have nothing but respect for the makers of this.
Rating: - Beyond Comprehension
I thought this documentary was quite well done. It was hard to watch at times, as they do show some quick flash footage shots from the actual death video (the audio was more difficult to endure...had to fast forward thru that...not for the squeamish). Like most people, when I heard the news of Ken Pinyan's death, I was disgusted, astounded, shocked, and saddened. Zoophilia is such a taboo subject, and how someone can take the love of animals to such a horrific extreme is impossible for me to understand. The film makers do make an effort to explore zoophilia from the perspectives of those intimately involved in this case (Pinyan's cronies).
There is a poignant interview in the middle of the movie with one of the actors who portrays a cop in the film. He talks about the tragedy that Pinyan bled to death, and we should not forget that he was a father and had a young son. It's hard to imagine being such a slave to those kind of desires, but the interviews with Pinyan's friends did help shed some light.
Rating: - More David Lynch than Michael Moore
Many people were probably very angry upon reaching the end of Zoo when they realized that they had not just watched a documentary, they had watched an art house film deceptively packaged as a documentary. Zoo eschews all standards of documentary filming such as factual content or video interviews, and instead strives to amaze viewers with flashy cinematography, a haunting musical score, and existential self-referential segments that have little or no connection with the subject matter of the documentary. The potential audience for this film should be warned ahead of time that it provides few solid facts about the events in question, sheds no new light on the subject of bestiality, and fails to provide any insight into why human beings would choose to make love with animals.
Zoo is nominally about the events leading up to Kenneth Pinyan's death due to a perforated colon when he engaged in anal intercourse with an Arabian stallion on videotape, as well as the individuals in Pinyan's life who encouraged or were at least indifferent to his interest in bestiality. The word "nominally" may be giving Zoo too much credit, as it never even provides Pinyan's name, instead solely using his online moniker "Mr. Hands". None of the individuals associated with Pinyan, from the group of people who identify themselves as living the zoo lifestyle that he met with regularly to engage in acts of bestiality, to his ex-wife and child, or even the police and prosecutors involved in the aftermath of his death, are ever shown on screen. Director Robinson Devor choose to use actors to create reenactments of events coupled with the occasional voiceover from audio interviews with a scant few people willing to talk about the issue. These audio tracks and reenactments do not even constitute the bulk of the film, which would have been acceptable if they gave any decent information. The vast majority of Zoo is simply long trailing shots of scenery or people matched with odd color schemes or eerie music. If these non-essential segments were all edited out, Zoo's runtime would be cut down from 80 minutes to somewhere around 30 minutes. There is no denying that Devor has a great talent for camera work and editing, but his talent is not suited to making documentaries.
Devor is so obsessed with producing a specific mood and theme, to the complete detriment of the "plot", that he might as well be directing an Italian giallo. Halfway through the film the actor who portrays a police officer is shown in front of an entirely white background while he talks about his reaction to being asked to act in the film that he is currently acting in. Occasionally throughout this monologue the screen flashes black, leaving a white ghost trail of the actor's silhouette. This sort of ploy crosses the line from artsy to self indulgent, especially considering that the monologue has only the most tenuous of connections to Pinyan or the zoo lifestyle. Perhaps Devor was trying to show that a subject as bizarre as animal love and the men who would risk potential death to take part in it could not successfully be explained by a straight forward exposition of events, but instead required a broader look at people and their environments in general that requires multiple viewings to really sink in.
Looking for an avant garde or artsy film to blow your mind with odd camera angles and off the wall color schemes? Look no further than Zoo. Those who actually wanted to learn something about Kenneth Pinyan or the mindset of people who would engage in such deviant acts can pass on this one.
|
|