For starters the movie used re-creations which is a major no-no in my book. That's why I despise disaster shows on the National Geographic Channel because it's so hokey and corny to show re-enactments (usually over and over). Just show the events that happened and interview those that were there or who have something relevant to say. You don't have to fill in the blanks with actors. "Zoo" actually did interview a few zoos that owned a house close to the barn and where "zoomeets" would take place, but all that did was add a huge dose of creepiness factor to the whole thing. If you met these guys at a fur-con, you would stay close to con security.
The movie uses lots of scenery shots. Loooong scenery shots. The opening sequence features an almost minute-long shot of an approaching light. Was it a man searching a pasture for a horse? No, it was a coal miner, used solely to illustrate the point that one of the zoos came from a coal mining family. There are lots of shots of the Seattle skyline and the green pastures found in the surrounding area. The soundtrack to the movie is also VERY annoying. It adds nothing and eventually becomes like nails on a chalkboard. As mentioned earlier some of the roles were played by actors. This really takes a lot away from the movie as a documentary. There is an interview with an actor who plays a cop in the movie. He's important because he watched a little boy drown once and so he could identify with Mr Hands dying. What?!?!
The movie doesn't go into any detail on why people might be zoos. Very little is said about who Mr Hands was in real life. Very little was said about the zoo community as a whole. In conclusion, very little was said about anything in this film. Rating: one paw barely raised.