SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Anders Twetman The movie starts with an exceedingly inane narration overlayed on some kind of nature show about fishes. It then moves on to show the narrator, a scientist type guy, who bumbles about his bleepy, bloopy blinking lights laboratory doing sciency stuff. He then strips (not a pretty sight) and immerses himself in a pool full of red water, by which he is turned into a hilarious looking "walking catfish monster" (guy in ugly rubber suit). Said monster then spends the rest of the movie bumbling about in much the same way science guy did, only the monster kills people instead of doing science, all set to swamp sounds like "wuuuh" and the like, plenty of clips of water creatures spliced in for good measure. Meanwhile, hero type and love interest girl have shown up in their camper van and red jumpsuits, accompanied by overly dramatic music where ever they go. It takes them a good half an hour to figure out who the monster is and where to find him, then hero type spends the rest of the movie stumbling through a swamp in search of the monster and his kidnapped girlfriend. Final fight ensues, the end.As you can tell, the film is mostly a lot of boring stumbling and bumbling, not really moving in any direction. When anything does happen it is often rather ridiculous, and the monster, which is the main focus, is ridiculous all the time.

urto123 Ever the fan of bad movies, I checked this out recently, and it did not let me down, in the sense that it really let me down. It's a typical low-budget monster movie with a really bad costume, subpar actors, and some shoddy camera-work.The story is about a doctor who is really uppity that the world doesn't like fish as much as he does, so he does the rational thing and turns himself into an amphibious monster in hopes of conquering the world. Somewhere in there, he also wants to prove to some former colleagues of his that he wasn't a maniac after all by maniacally killing them, and he also needs to find a suitable female, turn her into a monster, and breed with her so this monster race can rule the world.Ultimately, it's not a terrible plot idea for a monster movie, but the execution just sucks. You really only have a vague idea of what he's trying to do and why he's trying to do it. Furthermore, the first thirty minutes of the movie seems to be just him randomly going back and forth between his lab to stare at charts and the swamplands of Florida to scare the crap out of people.The worst thing contributing to the concept of a "decent idea gone bad" here is the camera-work. All I can really say is that whenever you've watched a shot long enough to understand what's going on and are ready for a new shot to begin so that more information can be conveyed to you, that's about the point when there will be ten to fifteen seconds left of said shot. They all just last a tiny bit too long, and it really starts to grind away at your tolerance of other aspects of the movie.The truly notable thing about this movie is the awful hero, who I would probably consider the worst of all time. To summarize exactly what he does in the movie, he is completely absent from it for the first half or so. When he shows up, he still doesn't really have any purpose, so he just kind of does nothing important for another 20 minutes. Finally, he decides to go to the antagonist's lair and end it once and for all. Unfortunately, he gets bitten by a snake on the way there and dies. What a champ.Despite all of the terrible camera-work, annoying characters, and poor plot progression, the ending of this movie is a surprisingly iconic scene that will stick with you for a ways to come, even if everything leading up to that moment of cinematic serenity was a pretty much detestable and haphazard.In the end, the plot and effects of this movie are about two decades too late for it to be a quality flick on a serious scale, and the non-story elements (camera, music, lighting, scene transitioning) are too irritating for it to have the charm of a quality B-movie. Every so often, it seems to get something right, perhaps showing it had some potential, but it's still just not a good movie on any level.

slayrrr666 "Zaat" is pretty bad and barely worthwhile entry.**SPOILERS**Undergoing a strange experiment, Dr. Kurt Leopold, (Marshall Grauer) manages to mix together the DNA of several different species of fish, then injects them into himself and turns into a mutated fish monster. Still reeling from years of rejection from the scientific community, he sets out to avenge his humiliation, attracting the attention of Sheriff Lou Krantz, (Paul Galloway) and worker Rex, (Gerald Cruse) a Wildlife Agent in the area testing for pollution in a local watering hole, and the deaths force him to call in Martha Walsh, (Sanna Ringhaver) and Walker Stevens, (Dave Dickerson) who confirm the notion that some monstrous fish is behind the deaths and set out to stop it before it's too late.The Good News: There was hardly anything in this one worthwhile. One of the few good points is that the creature attacks a larger number of victims than expected. From a great one attacking a couple camping in the wilderness where it drags off the woman and a somewhat suspenseful scene where it goes after a doctor's family at his home and another family fishing on the water, there's some rather decent attacks in here that manage to make it somewhat interesting at times. Another big attack is the creature rampaging through the town, where it chases the towns-members through several different stores and through the open areas, which are pretty fun and definitely get something going in here. Managing to trap the creature through the swamp is another pretty decent scene, since that one requires some suspenseful moments to come into play when they don't know what to do with it and where it's at, so there's something here that works nicely. It was also a nice idea to be able to get the transformation scene on-camera and done rather quickly, as it looks really good and happens to be well-done and since it occurs really early-on, the fact that there's going to be a lot of time spent with it is a good thing. The last good part to this one is the torture methods with the female camper, as there's some pretty nice things involved there that make it a chilling scene, and coupled with the antics of the creature, it's pretty nice to be able to see them occur in here. These, though, are all that's right with this one.The Bad News: There's a large amount of things wrong with this one. Amongst the flaws, one of the biggest ones is the fact that this one is just utterly dull and rarely features anything that will cause the viewer to be invested in what goes on. From endlessly watching the characters discuss their daily routine or spending a lot of time around those that are meant only to enhance the body count, among others, make this one a chore to get through in the middle stages of the film, where it should be getting going with its story and not slowing down to focus on these matters. These are further compounded in other areas where it's hard to really get anything out of the film, including the opening which is just excruciating. Watching fish swim around in tanks or the open water while a narrator speaks over everything about the fascinating virtues of a fish isn't a way to begin a film of this value, as it will elicit feelings of boredom almost immediately, and especially since this sequence manages to last around fifteen minutes. That's how long it takes to get a person on camera, and it's even longer until we know what's going on since these are silent shots once the narrator goes away, leaving it nearly impossible to care about anything that's going on with these scenes. The continuing ability to focus on fish swimming around also carries over into the later parts of the film, so this one can feel like a nature documentary at times, and that's not a good way to feel during this one. This one also didn't need to have the sequence with the hippie love-in, or whatever-they-were-doing, as slowing the film down right when the creature is on the loose to be subjected to a terrible folk-rock song from people who don't have any impact on the remainder of events is a terrible decision and is yet another factor in this one's downfall. Aside from the dullness, the film also has several parts which make no sense, such as the creature's rampage within the pharmacy. All it does is allow for an excuse to follow it later since it gets a white powder all-over-it, and to watch it stand around doing nothing just doesn't make any sense at all. Even more curious is that the creature continues on with the scientist's abilities while as a fish-monster, when it should instead simply be a mindless creature out wrecking havoc, not interested in experimentations or the like. The last flaw here is the incredibly low-budget, which is fairly obvious. From the look of the creature's make-up to the setting and location, it's obvious this one was cheap, and some of the stuff is reflected in here. These here are the film's flaws.The Final Verdict: Almost nothing of any value to be found here and a whole series of flaws manages to make this one just plain, utterly terrible. Recommended only to those aficionados of extremely bad cinema, while those who like a hint of talent to come through in films should avoid this one indefinitely.Rated PG: Violence

ratebait The IMDb correctly discourages comments from referencing other comments, but since ZAAT has the honor of being one of the IMDb's lowest rated films, it's appropriate to pay a nod to one of the chief forces behind its low rating. This main reason ties in with the peculiarity of a rarely seen and relatively unavailable film getting as high as over 2,000 votes.A reviewer from Tennessee got to the heart of this matter in his 2007 IMDb user's essay; he addressed another IMDb comment that bemoaned the majority of the reviewers having only seen ZAAT in its Mystery Science Theater 3000 dissection, which also happened to be the way the Tennessee reviewer saw the film. The MST3K crew cut out over a half-hour, so the IMDb reviewers who based their thoughts on the MST3K's put-down presentation didn't even see the whole film. "Why in God's name would I want to see 30 more minutes of this trash!" was the Tennessean's response.It is patently unfair to review a film on a version the purpose of which was to poke fun at the film. It is as if a film is judged not by watching the film, but by reading the MAD Magazine satire of it. And it especially becomes unfair if the satirized version has been abridged -- that's like a book reviewer who reviews a book based on only some chapters.Add to this formula the cynicism of a newer generation, who thinks it's "cool" to put down media-presented efforts; by doing so, such people think they are being smarter, and what a nice way to feel better.Of course ZAAT is a "bad" movie. Amateurish and logically-challenged -- for example, why would the sheriff not have drawn his gun on the approaching monster? (But don't get me started on the many places this movie has gone wrong; at this writing, there are about 70 reviews you can read, most of which will happily point out the absurdities.)Yet I entered into this debacle with exactly such low expectations. And yes, there were drawn-out scenes that were not easy to sit through. All in all, however, if you know what you're going to be in for, you accept the vehicle for what it is, and it is your attitude that is going to affect your judgment, and your ultimate enjoyment.I can honestly say there are many uninspired and forgettable films that are far more polished and professional than ZAAT, but for all ZAAT's inanities, I could appreciate the effort that went into ZAAT. The producer obviously had a very low budget (I'd imagine his contacts with the Florida Marine facility might have inspired the "plot" -- without money, a film can be designed around the locations and other assets), yet still managed to come up with a stupidly imaginative film.I appreciated the quality of the monster suit, for one thing -- given what must have been the restraints of the budget and the local special effects talent. Some of the dialogue was actually pretty clever. The fact that a black character was chosen as one of the heroes was admirable -- it was only a few years earlier that Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD had helped break the mold in this area, at least for horror movies. The director and/or editor also tried hard at times to add some excitement, for example with the insert shots during the attack on the scientist in his house. And the female victim was very beautiful. (With a movie like this, you've got to appreciate what you get.)I'm giving the film a few undeserved stars as a reaction against the numerous IMDb snobs who don't even have the decency to watch the real thing. And for those who have taken in the real thing, what DO these people expect when they watch a locally made monster movie from the 1970s that defines the word "cheesy"? On that level, ZAAT delivers in spades.