"Zoo" poster

email this story
read comments (28)
post a comment

Behold the poster for ThinkFilm 's Zoo, Robinson Devor's "horse-fucking movie" that will show at the Sundance Film Festival. One look and right away you're reminded of Peter Shaffer''s Equus. Where do I get the feeling that Zoo isn't quite as pregnant with ideas and metaphor? (Maybe it is.) When I think of a horse schtupping some guy and death resulting from ruptured tissue...gimme a break. Feels on some level like the new cinematic "Piss Christ."

Sundance is nuts<< previous | next >>China blocking "Departed"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 16, 2007 at 10:13 PM

comment #1

jeffmcm says ...

Glad to see you're going in with an open mind, wouldn't expect anything less.

Posted by jeffmcm at January 16, 2007 10:34 PM

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

Wells to jeffmcm: Verily I say unto ye that a movie about a real-life jerkwad dying from ruptured rectal tissue due to horse intercourse does not and cannot deliver profound meaningful echoes for a regular guy like myself. I think you need to draw the line here and there. Really. Do you draw the line at anything? Or are you just so completely possessed by burning artistic curiosity and the concept of openness to new ideas and new ways of seeing life that...well, you can't help yourself? Tell me this -- what if there was a Sundance movie about a guy who died from being anally gang-banged by 37 chipmunks? How about a trio of nuns being butt-fucked by crazed kangaroos in the Australian outback?

Posted by gruver1 at January 16, 2007 10:48 PM

comment #3

Noah says ...

Seriously, what if there was a movie about two cowboys fucking each other in the ass in Wyoming? Or what if there was a movie that had a pedophile jerking off in a car in front of a woman? Or what about a movie where a depressed, drugged-out rock singer just walks around a dilapidated house mumbling to himself before he commits suicide off-screen? Or how about a film about two guys who go to weddings just to fuck girls? Is there no line?!!?

Honestly, maybe the movie sucks, maybe it doesn't, but just because it has a horse fucking a man in it, doesnt mean that that is what it is ABOUT. I, for one, would be curious what kind of person would do this and I'd be interested to see what kind of picture it paints of this man.

Posted by Noah at January 16, 2007 10:57 PM

comment #4

bipedalist says ...

I just feel bad for the horse. "What the...?"

Posted by bipedalist at January 16, 2007 11:03 PM

comment #5

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Noah: I didn't blink for one nanosecond about the action in Brokeback Mountain, Happiness, Last Days and The Wedding Crashers. None of these are in the realm of a movie about a guy getting nailed in the ass by a horse, unless (as I said) it's on the level of "Equus," or at least a level that aspires to same. I'm assuming, naturally, that it's about something other than the mere facts.

Posted by gruver1 at January 16, 2007 11:07 PM

comment #6

David Ehrlich says ...

a moment's praise for bipedalist's reference (to a film, I might add, that embarrasses Jeff's former pet, Wedding Crashers).

Posted by David Ehrlich at January 16, 2007 11:19 PM

comment #7

christian says ...

this film would have to be beyond profound for me to go.

Posted by christian at January 16, 2007 11:28 PM

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

Man, if you're gonna rip off a film, why does it have to be Freddie Got Fingered?

Posted by D.Z. at January 16, 2007 11:34 PM

comment #9

LYTrules says ...

Bobcat Goldthwait's dog-fucking movie was pretty good. Not great, but good.

Took me a while to realize that that's actually a horse on the poster.

Posted by LYTrules at January 16, 2007 11:46 PM

comment #10

dobbsy says ...

Inside scoop on "Zoo": This is what's left of the "Mr. Ed" remake after it went through the studio development process. No wonder Steve Carell passed on it.

"Hellllooooo WWWWWIIILLLBBBURRR!!!"

Posted by dobbsy at January 17, 2007 12:00 AM

comment #11

bellepoitrine says ...

It's the real Brokeback Mountain.

Posted by bellepoitrine at January 17, 2007 12:16 AM

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

jeffmcm to Wells: Yes, I do think that there is the possibility that this movie could actually have artistic integrity. It's an interesting story - right off the top of my head, I can imagine it (if done well) getting to interesting questions about how lonely a person has to be in today's world to resort to such extreme ends to find personal gratification. Of course, it could just be a dopey exploitation doc. But I don't know, cause I'm not going to Sundance.

If you are so dead-set against it, I recommend that you see one of three other films that are probably screening at the same time that you haven't made up your mind about.

Posted by jeffmcm at January 17, 2007 12:18 AM

comment #13

Argen says ...

Regular guys don't care about the thread count in their T-shirts, Wells, so drop the man-of-the-people act.

Posted by Argen at January 17, 2007 1:15 AM

comment #14

EDouglas says ...

I wonder if THINKFilm and Tartan Films have a running bet on who can get the most movies with an NC-17 rating. Red Road is likely to be tagged with one for an 'extended cunnilingus' sequence.

Posted by EDouglas at January 17, 2007 3:21 AM

comment #15

Thrudvangar says ...

I thought the pedophile jerking off was a reference to Little Children; not to Happiness. Though I haven't seen Happiness in awhile.

Posted by Thrudvangar at January 17, 2007 3:33 AM

comment #16

NYCBusybody says ...

I'd rather watch a film about a man and a horse in rough 69 action than listen to Wells try and explain how he's a "regular guy".

Posted by NYCBusybody at January 17, 2007 6:11 AM

comment #17

Ju-osh says ...

Part of being the 'Lewis Black of internet film journalism' is surely making jokes and being witty. Unenhanced crankiness and uninformed, knee-jerk responses to the world around you will only get you labeled the 'Bill O'Rielly of internet film journalism.'

Posted by Ju-osh at January 17, 2007 7:45 AM

comment #18

Mark says ...

wow! check out the subliminal rod that makes up that horse's cheekbone. Joe Camel eat your heart out.

Posted by Mark at January 17, 2007 8:53 AM

comment #19

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Ju-Osh: What has happened to civilization? You're calling me cranky and knee-jerk and Bill O'Reilly-ish because I'm suspicious and guarded about a movie that explores the situation of a guy who died from being butt-fucked by a horse? This feels like a "Twilight Zone" episode starring Earl Holliman.

Posted by gruver1 at January 17, 2007 9:10 AM

comment #20

le corbeau says ...

"How about a trio of nuns being butt-fucked by crazed kangaroos in the Australian outback?"

If you can get a couple of A-list stars attached, I'm sold! It's Kangaroo Jack meets Agnes of God!

Seriously, I feel about this like I feel about the torture mom indie discussed the other day-- yes, it's possible you can find something psychologically interesting here (though I tend to think wired-to-find-horses-sexy is no more intrinsically interesting than wired-to-find-algebra-fascinating, when you come down to it), but it's mainly about how hard it is to find a subject for your indie that will get attention.

Oh well, I liked Devor's The Woman Chaser a lot, he deserves a chance...

Posted by le corbeau at January 17, 2007 9:44 AM

comment #21

Reedyb says ...

It worked for Clerks II, why not here. Although Joel Siegel may walk out.

Posted by Reedyb at January 17, 2007 10:21 AM

comment #22

Rich S. says ...

Jeffrey,

What I think Ju-osh is trying to say by his Bill OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Reilly comment (since he apparently lifted it whole from a post I made in response to your Meryl Streep/Mamma Mia item) is that, like OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Reilly, you have supported waging a vaguely-defined Ã¢â‚¬Å“culture warÃ¢â‚¬Â in part by drawing arbitrary battle lines and then declaring anyone on the other side of that line a Ã¢â‚¬Å“traitor,Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“slackjaw,Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“bubba,Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“red stater,Ã¢â‚¬Â etc.

In the case of Zoo (and the Indiana torture mom film), you have chosen to draw the battle line closer to where some of your more conservative readers normally would. And you are being called onto the carpet for it by your not-so-conservative readers.

Normally, an individual who chooses not to see these types of films would decline according to personal taste, and it would be left at that. But since youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve chosen to define taste (your own and othersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢) in stark terms of cultural and intellectual worthiness, any time you choose to exercise that taste, it by necessity must be viewed through the prism of your Ã¢â‚¬Å“culture war.Ã¢â‚¬Â

It can be painful having oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worth as a human being dismissed out of hand for such a trivial matter, canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it?

Posted by Rich S. at January 17, 2007 10:43 AM

comment #23

The Movie Man says ...

Well said Rich, I had voiced distaste with the tone of the Mama Mia thing myself, and in a response, Jeff managed to miss the point entirely, implying that I, and others, were being defensive of the material itself when we clearly had written otherwise. On a nearly daily basis Jeff writes elitist generalizations of groups supposedly beneath him (I live in a rather backward area myself and it IS irritating, but its sometimes worth writing that not everyone is like that) so I get the general frustration but, in this particular thread, I'm with Jeff, yes, "Zoo" COULD be some profound whatever, but the odds are against it, just like the odds are against something like "Transformers" being anything more than forgettable fanboy courting trash, yes it COULD happen, but would you bet on it? We all make assumptions about upcoming movies before seeing them, I don't get the primary argument on this thread.

And for the record Jeff acknowledges that is (distantly) possible that Zoo could be more.

Posted by The Movie Man at January 17, 2007 11:00 AM

comment #24

mitch says ...

I expect Zoo to be a comedy, kinda like of Animal House.

Posted by mitch at January 17, 2007 11:24 AM

comment #25

Ju-osh says ...

Honestly, Rich, I wasn't ripping you off (we can just chalk it up to 'great minds' and all that, if you'd like), but thanks all the same for explaining it to JW.

Posted by Ju-osh at January 17, 2007 12:43 PM

comment #26

Rich S. says ...

Ju,

I believe you. Jeffrey has been on a distinctly "spin-free" kick lately. If you like, go back through the archives and find the Meryl Streep/Mamma Mia post I'm talking about. It's even more indicative of what we're talking about.

Posted by Rich S. at January 17, 2007 1:02 PM

comment #27