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.

I first read about this movie as being called ZaAt. Then I actually watch it under the name "Attack of the Swamp Monsters." THEN I hear about it once again as The Blood Island of Dr. Z as showed on MST 3k. I have not seen the MST 3k version of this movie, but one has to admit, they would have a LOT to work with. The lighting of this movie was terrible, the kill scenes were very short, the mask! Well, the mask is very self explanatory.

One thing that boggled my mind was after the monster tipped the boat, there were two people floating in the water, while one scrambled to shore. One person in the water was still moving their hands even though it's my best guess that the catfish monster killed them. And then when the monster went up on the land to kill the other person, HE DIDN'T EVEN TOUCH THE PERSON!!! It looked like he just swept a bug off of her chest and she just went limp!!! What?!? I'm no corroner, but I know that somebody doesn't die from being brushed, even if it is by a catfish type monster. My biggest complaint as in every 70's movie, was the lighting. I have never seen worse lighting in my life. You could use the indiglo of a watch and see what was happening better than the lighting from this movie. But what was so bad about it was that there was bad lighting during scenes that looked like they were important, like the fight scene between the people of INPET (shoulda been named "INEPT") and the monster. That looked like it could have been a big scene, if only we could have seen what was going on. And how about those fresh water underwater scenes, you know, with the coral and tropical fish and currents and all. That must have seen some fresh water pond to house coral. Last time I checked, coral doesn't grow in fresh water, never mind that it grew in a pond.

Well, I'll let you watch to enjoy the rest of the movie, although I do suggest you go out and rent the non-MST 3k version, just because sometimes it's fun to enjoy a movie without someone telling you what's funny about it.

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.

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.