Zaat

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.

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 ****

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.

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.

Even though I watch a lot of bad movies, it's been awhile since I've seen a plot that made less sense than the one found in Blood Waters of Dr. Z. For reasons known only to him, Dr. Kurt Leopold decides the planet would be a better place if fish were to take over. After a rather lengthy voice-over soliloquy on the subject, he dunks himself into a tank and comes out transformed into some sort of poorly designed would-be fish-creature. With his handy spray bottle filled with I'm not sure what, he sets out on his mission to lead the catfish in a takeover of the Earth. Before you can say "carp", Dr. Leopold's plan seems to be forgotten in favor of finding a mate he can transform into a would-be fish-creature. (Actually, I'm of the opinion that getting laid was Dr. Leopold's goal the whole time. Forget about the nonsense of a master race of fish.) As the bodies start to pile up, old fish-boy soon has some scientists and the local sheriff on his tail. Can they put a stop to Dr. Leopold and his plans for world domination?

Whether you call the movie Blood Waters of Dr. Z or Zaat or ZaAt or Attack of the Swamp Creatures, it really doesn't matter. Crap by any name is still crap. The movie is Grade A bottom-of-the-barrel film-making. As I pointed out, the plot is ridiculous. The technical aspects of the films like lighting, sound, special effects, editing, etc. are beyond bad. The direction is amateurish at best. And as for the acting, I'm not in the least surprised to discover that no one involved ever did anything other than appear in this monstrosity (okay, one guy does have one other credit, but that's it). Quite honestly, my rating of a 2/10 is incredibly generous. I'm sure there's a reason I didn't give Blood Waters of Dr. Z the dreaded 1/10, but sitting here 12 hours after watching the movie, I can't come up with a valid explanation.

One of the comments on IMDb bemoans the fact that the majority of people rating and reviewing Blood Waters of Dr. Z have only seen the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version (that's how I saw it also). The comment states that the real movie has 30 or so minutes edited out by the MST3K crew and the movie shouldn't be judged unless someone has seen the whole thing. Well why in God's name would I want to see 30 more minutes of this trash! The time I've already devoted to Blood Waters of Dr. Z is above and beyond what it deserves. Just be glad more people haven't seen that additional footage as I'm guessing the rating would be even lower if they had.