IMDb-BEWERTUNG
2,2/10
5399
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ein verrückter Wissenschaftler verwandelt sich in einen Wassermörder.Ein verrückter Wissenschaftler verwandelt sich in einen Wassermörder.Ein verrückter Wissenschaftler verwandelt sich in einen Wassermörder.
Rich Valliere
- Deputy Sheriff
- (as Archie Valliere)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Crazy scientist living in the Florida swamps turns himself into a monstrous walking fish-man and proceeds to terrorize.
Another drive in low-budgeter that probably would have been more at home in the 1950's rather than the early 70's. It's weird and cheap schlock all the way! The big rubber monster of the film is quite cheesy looking as it teeters around the swamps and struggles to swim in underwater scenes. The zippers of the monster suit are "hidden" by patches of fur. Zaat seems to have all of the hokey B flick trappings - a silly storyline, lackluster acting, crude editing, and a folksy theme song. Also there's a bikini-wearing girl who gets kidnapped by the monster to cap it off.
Now ordinarily such campy qualities might be downright charming to a B horror fan such as myself, unfortunately Zaat is just too roughly-made and ultimately ridiculous for its own good. Not the worst of its kind, it certainly beats the similarly themed 1966 movie Curse of the Swamp Creature, but Zaat leaves much to be desired.
Then again, what other horror film is there where the monster robs a drugstore?
* 1/2 out of ****
Another drive in low-budgeter that probably would have been more at home in the 1950's rather than the early 70's. It's weird and cheap schlock all the way! The big rubber monster of the film is quite cheesy looking as it teeters around the swamps and struggles to swim in underwater scenes. The zippers of the monster suit are "hidden" by patches of fur. Zaat seems to have all of the hokey B flick trappings - a silly storyline, lackluster acting, crude editing, and a folksy theme song. Also there's a bikini-wearing girl who gets kidnapped by the monster to cap it off.
Now ordinarily such campy qualities might be downright charming to a B horror fan such as myself, unfortunately Zaat is just too roughly-made and ultimately ridiculous for its own good. Not the worst of its kind, it certainly beats the similarly themed 1966 movie Curse of the Swamp Creature, but Zaat leaves much to be desired.
Then again, what other horror film is there where the monster robs a drugstore?
* 1/2 out of ****
Yes, I gave it a 2, dammit. The underwater photography is tolerable and there are a couple of suspenseful attacking moments. Basically, however, this movie rambles on pointlessly, much like the "walking catfish" mutant and the government agent who tracks him in the last third of the movie.
The first 20 minutes of the movie is in (hilarious) voiceover, and you begin to wonder if they lost the soundtrack ala Creeping Terror and Beast of Yuca Flats. Then the characters actually start speaking on-screen and you wish they had lost the soundtrack. The dialogue seems to bear no resemblance to the onscreen goings-on. I suppose it establishes some plot points and clarifies things for the audience, but there are so many ramblings and offshoots that you just kinda of give up and give in.
The "monster" looks like an early draft of a Silurian costume from Doctor Who, with a fur neckpiece (??). The skinny, balding bad guy is on-screen for only a few minutes before undergoing his transformation, but imprints himself indelibly in our minds thanks to his stripping down, his hamhanded maneuvering himself into the transformation tank, and his omniscient voiceover narration.
And the fish! What is it with the fish? The opening narration dwells on them (giving us a good impression of Jacques Costeau as a Nazi gone bad), and at least one murder scene decides to insert random shots of fish in-between cuts. There seems to be some kind of implied ecological nature-takes-vengeance message here somewhere, but like everything else, it is lost entirely in the rambling dialogue.
Basically, the movie is pretty much a waste of celluloid. A few good moments, as I've seen far worse underwater cinematography. Watch it if you dare.
The first 20 minutes of the movie is in (hilarious) voiceover, and you begin to wonder if they lost the soundtrack ala Creeping Terror and Beast of Yuca Flats. Then the characters actually start speaking on-screen and you wish they had lost the soundtrack. The dialogue seems to bear no resemblance to the onscreen goings-on. I suppose it establishes some plot points and clarifies things for the audience, but there are so many ramblings and offshoots that you just kinda of give up and give in.
The "monster" looks like an early draft of a Silurian costume from Doctor Who, with a fur neckpiece (??). The skinny, balding bad guy is on-screen for only a few minutes before undergoing his transformation, but imprints himself indelibly in our minds thanks to his stripping down, his hamhanded maneuvering himself into the transformation tank, and his omniscient voiceover narration.
And the fish! What is it with the fish? The opening narration dwells on them (giving us a good impression of Jacques Costeau as a Nazi gone bad), and at least one murder scene decides to insert random shots of fish in-between cuts. There seems to be some kind of implied ecological nature-takes-vengeance message here somewhere, but like everything else, it is lost entirely in the rambling dialogue.
Basically, the movie is pretty much a waste of celluloid. A few good moments, as I've seen far worse underwater cinematography. Watch it if you dare.
Well, no, actually it's an abominable movie, but odd in an interesting way -- I suppose partly because of the filmmakers' ineptitude. If it's riffing off of Frankenstein, why does the catfish creature have to find attractive women to try and mutate into fish brides? Where does that beauty go once you've been mutated into a fish?
And how was I supposed to feel when he breaks into a pharmacy and starts knocking things over? Eerie screeching came over the soundtrack as though this were a moment suffused with inner psychological drama, but maybe the suit the guy had to wear fragmented his performance so much that this really didn't get communicated.
I think if I'd watched this without the puppets, I'd have permanently lost my mind. That's got to count for SOMETHING.
And how was I supposed to feel when he breaks into a pharmacy and starts knocking things over? Eerie screeching came over the soundtrack as though this were a moment suffused with inner psychological drama, but maybe the suit the guy had to wear fragmented his performance so much that this really didn't get communicated.
I think if I'd watched this without the puppets, I'd have permanently lost my mind. That's got to count for SOMETHING.
Sargassum, the weed of deceit. Sargassum fish -- mighty hunter of the deep! What an inspiration you have been in my plot! Your life of hiding, waiting... stalking your prey. At just the right moment... ATTACK! [chuckles] I love you. I hope I'll be a good imitator. And my friend, the shark. Cunning, swift... wretched humans, they're afraid of you! I admire you. Soon, I'll swim with you! They'll be afraid! [chuckles] Oh, mighty scorpion, dangerous beast of the ocean with your powerful daggers, and your camouflage... you have little to fear from other fish. [laughs] They think I'm insane! THEY'RE the ones who are insane! Oh, my friends of the deep! This day, this very day, I'll become one of YOU! My family! And together we'll conquer the universe!
Granted, I wasn't expecting much from this 1971 movie when I sat down to watch in here in 2020. But hey, I hadn't seen it before - nor even heard about it - and so I thought I would sit down to watch it, as it might actually be a good movie.
Well, turns out that the storyline in "Zaat" was rather generic and mundane, offering very little of great entertainment to the audience. The plot was fairly straight forward, for sure, but it just wasn't a particularly compelling or interesting storyline all together. It just amazes me that with four writers, that they couldn't come up with something more wholehearted than what this movie turned out to be.
The acting in the movie was adequate for most parts, aside from the dubious acting in the first part of the movie before the guy turned into the amphibious creature.
For a movie from 1971, then I will say that the special effects weren't all that impressive. Perhaps back in the day they were passable on the screen, but they have not withstood the test of time with grace. The creature design was fairly shoddy, and it was blatantly obvious that it was just a guy in a rubber suit walking and swimming about. And the design of the head for the amphibious creature was just abysmal, it looked horrible and distorted.
No wonder I had never heard about "Zaat" before I got the chance to sit down to watch it, and I hadn't been missing out on a particularly great or outstanding moment in cinema history.
I am rating "Zaat" a mere three out of ten stars, as the movie was watchable, albeit not entertaining. And "Zaat" is not a movie that warrants more than a single viewing, especially since just getting through the first viewing was something of an ordeal in itself.
Well, turns out that the storyline in "Zaat" was rather generic and mundane, offering very little of great entertainment to the audience. The plot was fairly straight forward, for sure, but it just wasn't a particularly compelling or interesting storyline all together. It just amazes me that with four writers, that they couldn't come up with something more wholehearted than what this movie turned out to be.
The acting in the movie was adequate for most parts, aside from the dubious acting in the first part of the movie before the guy turned into the amphibious creature.
For a movie from 1971, then I will say that the special effects weren't all that impressive. Perhaps back in the day they were passable on the screen, but they have not withstood the test of time with grace. The creature design was fairly shoddy, and it was blatantly obvious that it was just a guy in a rubber suit walking and swimming about. And the design of the head for the amphibious creature was just abysmal, it looked horrible and distorted.
No wonder I had never heard about "Zaat" before I got the chance to sit down to watch it, and I hadn't been missing out on a particularly great or outstanding moment in cinema history.
I am rating "Zaat" a mere three out of ten stars, as the movie was watchable, albeit not entertaining. And "Zaat" is not a movie that warrants more than a single viewing, especially since just getting through the first viewing was something of an ordeal in itself.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesDon Barton filled the monster role through a newspaper ad, "Wanted: 6'5" or taller male to play the role of monster in horror movie. Must be experienced swimmer, scuba diver. Acting Ability not required!" Barton said ten people responded.
- PatzerIn one wide shot, the creature wears tennis shoes while returning to the lab.
- Zitate
Dr. Leopold: The formula they all laughed at - Z sub A, A sub T... ZaAt!
- Alternative VersionenFor its 1999 airing on Mystery Science Theater 3000, Zaat (shown under the title Blood Waters of Dr. Z) was heavily edited. Among the numerous scenes cut were further scenes of the INPIT agents, Dr. Leopold disposing of his victim in a vat of acid, scenes of the locals evacuating, and one bizarre scene where a band of singing hippies is taken to the jail by the Sheriff.
- VerbindungenEdited into Robot Bride of Manos (2022)
- SoundtracksWorld War II Boy
(the theme from 'Zaat')
Written and performed by Jamie DeFrates and Barry Hodgin
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Zaat?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box Office
- Budget
- 75.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 40 Minuten
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen