User Reviews

In one of the most unique dramas to come out of pre-code Hollywood, "Zoo in Budapest" is a fascinating romantic drama about an orphan and a zoo keeper who have an overnight adventure that includes escaped animals, lecherous zoo employees, and domineering orphanage matrons.

Loretta Young is the innocent waif who has a crush on zoo keeper Gene Raymond who whistles a particular tune every time she is around to get her attention and talks to the animals, with his dialog meant for Young to hear. Raymond has a magic touch with the animals, which includes a lame deer, a flu-infected chimp, and a very affectionate spider monkey.

This is one of the most magically photographed films of the early 30's and features an amazing sequence with animals on the rampage, including lions, tigers, elephants, and porcupines. There's not much acting required for the leads---the true stars are the animals and the camera.

Having seen this film several times over the years, it never ceases to amaze me with its outstanding animal photography that is obviously not stock footage used in many "Tarzan" film ripoffs. Definitely one of the best films of 1933!

Loretta Young (an escaped orphan), Gene Raymond (a keen keeper), O.P. Heggie (zoo headman), Murray Kinnell (his assistant), Paul Fix (villain), Wally Albright (lost boy), Ruth Warren (Katrina).

Director: ROWLAND V. LEE. Screenplay: Rowland V. Lee, Louise Long, Dan Totheroh. Story: Melville Baker, Jack Kirkland. Photography: Lee Garmes. Film editor: Harold Schuster. Art director: William Darling. Assistant director: William Tummel. Producer: Jesse L. Lasky.

Copyright 8 April 1933 by Fox. 83 minutes. Although the copyright length is given as 8,500 feet (94 minutes), this was simply a guesstimate!

COMMENT: Photographer Lee Garmes told me that he was the genius behind all the indelibly wonderful compositions, as well as all the spellbinding lighting in this disturbing film.

To embellish the "outdoor" scenes, Lee himself purchased and positioned plants and other flora, tied bamboo to obtrusive telephone poles, etc.

According to Lee Garmes, the director, Rowland V. Lee, was responsible for not only the fine performances, but for the script's most adroit construction and pacing. The story starts slowly, gradually building up speed until it hurtles to a knock-out (but be warned!) rather disturbing finale, that was actually outlawed back in 1939.

Both Gene Raymond (an athletic hero) and the young Loretta Young (the waif) are absolutely perfect.

Raymond's heavy New York City accent just doesn't work in this story that has him playing a naive young man who has never left the confines of the Budapest Zoo! Quite a job of miscasting there. Young is lovely & well-suited for her role, & holds up in the acting department a bit better than Raymond does. The film doesn't work very well as an allegory. If the tiger is to represent Raymond (or Young, for that matter), why would it attack an elephant upon its release? Is the elephant to be a symbol of the tiger's oppressor? I don't think so, the elephant was locked up just the way that the tiger was. Good film with great animal zoo scenes & enjoyable to watch, but not quite the fantastic fairy tale that other reviewers have raved about.

This film has a strong reputation and has impressed audiences and critics since its release into theaters back in 1933. Personally, I found it a bit sluggish in spots and almost belabored. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the sincerity and romantic sentiments on display, but it seemed to me as if the story was a little one-dimensional and could have been told in half the time.

During the introductory reel, too many scenes are spent presenting the animals in their various cages at the titular zoo. In fact the first ten minutes is focused on the animals, and we don't even see the first human star (Gene Raymond) until after the initial sequence finishes. I get it, the producers had spent a lot of money renting animals and wanted to show them off and generate an atmosphere of believability that this is a zoological habitat.

But why they've set this in Budapest, when it seems more like an ordinary zoo in southern California where nobody speaks with any realistic sounding Eastern European accent, is a mystery to me. I suppose Budapest sounded more glamorous, more old world-ish, and more simplistic in terms of the basic romance that ends up consuming the picture.

I agree with other reviewers who say Mr. Raymond is enjoying himself in the role of Zani, an urban Tarzan who functions as a pseudo animal rights advocate. While working at the zoo, he frolics with cubs in their cages, carries on whole conversations with monkeys, seems to be able to read the minds of elephants, and entertains visitors to the site, especially children with his antics. He makes the film a bit more lively and fun than it otherwise might have been.

Cast as the female lead is Loretta Young. She was borrowed from home studio Warner Brothers for this assignment. Interestingly, she'd defect from Warners a short time later with Darryl Zanuck, to make films for him. By mid-decade, Zanuck would merge his indy company 20th Century Pictures with Fox to form 20th Century Fox, and Miss Young would become a Fox contract player for the rest of the 1930s. She's so youthful and delicate looking. Yet there's considerable spunk and determination underlying her gentle nature, so she actually seems right at home in this production.

Young portrays Eve (who might just as easily have been called Jane), a just-turned-18 orphan who is about to be shipped off to a job for five years by a cold and nasty headmistress (Lucille Ward). Other girls at the orphanage conspire to help Young escape during a field trip to the zoo. She's been here before, and she's previously caught Raymond's eye. He wants her to be free of all that nonsense and live with him, though he has no future prospects.

Into this mix we have a small boy (Wally Albright) from a rich family who also 'escapes,' from his nanny...and eventually, the three hideout together. This occurs after Raymond's character is accused of stealing and must face the police. To think they could all remain here, indefinitely, is somewhat preposterous. Though the scenes where they huddle together in an enclosed area are charming, and we do root for love to ultimately win out...which it does.

There's a dramatic sequence in the last reel where some of the zoo's most dangerous animals get loose. As all this chaos occurs, Raymond demonstrates his bravery in saving the boy's life. As a result of his heroic efforts, he is forgiven his crimes and will be allowed to marry Young. In a nice twist, they get jobs at the estate of Albright's wealthy father, so they will remain in contact with the kid.

This is not a great film, in my humble opinion, but it gets the job done. Certainly the sequence where the animals run amok at the end, is the big moment, and will stay etched in any viewer's memory. I just felt that it took too long for the main story to get underway. Also, there aren't any real suitable subplots-- the stuff about the kind doctor (O. P. Heggie) who runs the zoo and has a fatherly bond with Raymond-- seems nearly inconsequential at times. Mostly, we are stuck with just one storyline that, like I said, could have been told in half the film's run time.