I found this Youtube, thank God I didn't pay for this. It's exactly what you think it is. A documentary about a guy getting anally penetrated by a horse and then dying as a result. Also, there's other interviews with other Zoophiles. Yes, they are just as pathetic and creepy as you think they are. They attempt to justify their behavior by flimsy excuses. "It's natural." "These horses aren't coerced." "We love them like family." As though having sex with an animal isn't something one can control. It's society's fault, not theirs, that they are judged. These animals are trained to have sex with their handlers, but these men claim otherwise, despite there being tools in the barn contrary to that. They claim horses react to human male sex hormones and this results in mounting. Yeah, I have no idea either. That's my main problem with this film. The men who are, largely, responsible for a man's death do not feel guilt. They feel unjustly judged. They let a man die on their property, but that's the thing that gets to them. Their animal brothel is shut down, and that's what prompts their outrage. These men are creepy, sound creepy. There is nothing romantic about having sex with an animal. Thank God, they including the horse's new handler Jenny to say 'Yeah no, that's bullshit.' She's a blessing. XD An interesting movie if you have an hour or two to waste, and you can find it for free.

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

To my mind, Zoo isn't really a documentary. It's an art-opinion piece trying to make a point that peaceful people who aren't harming anyone and love their animals (?) should be left alone. Much of the cinematography is indeed beautiful, but many shots are too dark (in the lack-of-light sense) to appreciate, and most are lingered over far too long. Since the filmmakers use audio-only interviews over goofy scene reenactments to tell what story there is, it's hard to tell what's going on most of the time. Any actual facts are referred to obliquely rather than delineated. I wasn't looking for graphic details, but did hope to learn more about the truth of the situation. This film was little help in that regard, although I did learn a few things about the people involved. This mess does not a documentary make. Bottom line: Don't try to be Errol Morris unless you can pull it off. PS: Some folks think differently; Zoo was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance.

This documentary, which tells the story of a man who died after an encounter with a horse, does go some way to presenting the views of both zoos (people who have an affinity with animals which stretches to engaging sexually with them) and animal welfare experts. However it does not present anything salacious or revealing, nor does it go into any real analysis of why some people have these needs and feelings.As an investigative documentary, I feel it fails on this level. As a piece of sensationalism, it fails - as there's nothing here really to offend. It's a shocking story in many ways but the way it is presented is so detached you can't feel anything for the people involved, even a slight curiosity or interest.