Must See Movie...

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

There's one thing that ZAAT has going for it that very few monster movies do: it delivers the goods early on and doesn't skimp. I'm referring, of course, to the monster itself. In 99.9% of monster movies, the viewer is left wanting more (if not ANY) of the titular creature. ZAAT boldly breaks with tradition and gives us an active, almost always on-screen creature doing his best to wreak havoc on the local populace. He's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer (he IS a mutant monster, after all- nor was he any worldbeater BEFORE his transformation, either), but he does his best. It helps that the locals make some serious errors in judgement when confronting our hero (like the sheriff who starts to draw his gun when he runs afoul of our hero, then opts to use it as a club rather than a firearm), but that's a big part of what makes the movie so much fun. ZAAT's costume is pretty neat (yes, I'm well aware that the fur is there to hide the seams, but so what?) and it's refreshing to run into a No Budget movie that just keeps plugging away to the very end. I've seen a LOT of movies a lot worse.

A mad scientist transforms himself into an aquatic killer.The scientist here is basing his research on one of the most creepy fish I have ever seen. Apparently it is a walking catfish. Yuck! There is much to criticize about the film -- the washed out sepia color that probably cannot be fixed by digital remastering, the completely inexperienced cast and crew. The "awesome" monster costume...But the film has charm, and despite being a bad movie, it is not deserving of being on the bottom 100. Someone put it there because it was on MST3K, and that is all. Sure, it deserves to be made fun of... but I have seen far worse than this.

anyone that doesn't like this movie clearly takes themselves way too seriously ......this was not supposed to be elephantman by the way........bear in mind it is an independent made on a $75,000 budget by people who are clearly fans of the genre ......it is a type of movie made by the kind of people who made billy jack, motel hell, etc....... because they had an original story to tell and they were having a good time, as were the people who helped them, in Florida i have read........these kinds of movies helped keep drive-ins alive.....by the way, i think this film is a lot better than the first efforts i have seen on similar, or greater, budgets from wizards like spielberg, lucas and coppola........ now, actually as a scientist i was impressed by the science of it all and the use of technology available at the time .......i thought it flowed quite nicely and was very surprised by the quality of the actors even when considering everyone in front and behind the cameras were just amateurs with the exception possibly, of the cinematographer.......i have no idea why some of these people didn't stay in show business ......i think they would have done well especially when associated with such a great monster cult film like this.........an even more important part of the film from an historical aspect is the presence of charles manson and some of his family members as manson plays the guitar and sings a very touching song in the middle of the movie ..............all in all, i thought it was just great.

This is the second film that I watch in only a couple of weeks where I had to restrain myself from shouting at the screen: "Get over Creature from the Black Lagoon; its success has been twenty years!" A little word of clarification is in place here perhaps, this film and "Octaman" are two cheap 70's exploitation horror movies with a 50's attitude and mentality. Both titles desperately want to imitate Jack Arnold's legendary "Creature from the Black Lagoon" with an old-fashioned guy-in- a-rubber-suit monster emerging from still waters to attack unsuspecting swimmers. However, both films are also unimaginably bad, amateurishly put together and they actually make the aforementioned Creature look like it's "Citizen Kane". The ultra-evil and deranged Dr. Kurt Leopold – a scientist with obvious Nazi sympathies – found a method to mutate into a fish monster and simultaneously developed the absurd plan to create a superior aquatic race and exterminate all human beings. That's pretty much the whole set-up… There are certain hints towards interesting sub plots (fish jumping on land and revolting against humans, acid baths to dispose of failed experiments …) but they are never properly elaborated. "Zaat" is also obviously stuffed with Frankenstein influences. The monster creation process, for example, is very similar and there's also search for a bride for the monster. Basically, it comes down to the fact that Dr. Leopold intends to create a fish-queen and therefore he extendedly observes blond girls camping and then kidnaps them to his liar. There are numerous good reasons why "Zaat" is currently listed as n# 10 in the bottom top 100 movies of all time. The effects are incredibly tacky and the set designs are laughably cheap. Most of the film was most obviously shot on private locations, like somebody living room or the pond in one of the crew members' garden. The poor sucker who had to walk around in the suit appears to be drunk most of the time and the mask looks like a green version of Alf. The soundtrack is horrible and worst of all were the hippie morals being shoved down your throat, like for example the fact that "friends" of the environment escape the wrath of "Zaat". Only for very experienced bad movie fanatics.