mark.waltz Tom Poston got the short shrift with his two William Castle films, both lame comedies where even his subtle comic talents can't save him from the unfunny scripts. This science fiction spoof is about a rare ancient coin that shows things down, speeds them up, freezes them or kills them. He's the nerdy college professor trying to give this to the Pentagon, which results in Russian spies going after him. (Those spies are conveniently outside General Fred Clark's office posing as window washers). There's one funny scene concerning some loose mice (with Margaret Dumont, of all old biddies, present as Persephone Updike!) and such other vets as Cecil Kellaway and Jim Backus there as well. Backus's one big comic moment (his speech being slowed down to make him appear drunk) is embarrassingly unfunny. With such talent, you'd think there'd be more humor (even if the plot is beyond ridiculous) but the result is a zero. Nertz to Zotz.

TheMightyEye ZOTZ! unfortunately proves the producer/director's lack of ability with Comedic storytelling. He was a horror flick master but WiIlliam Castle must have thought anything and everything was funny. Perhaps that's why he always seems to have a grin on his face. I can just imagine him rolling in the aisle at the premiere while everyone else is scratching his head. And poor Tom Poston! I remember him (in various TV appearances) as being a funny comic who had a subtle and dry delivery. But in ZOTZ! there aren't really any jokes. I hate to say it but laugh tracks would actually have helped this film.I won't bother to mention the plot, as the other reviews do that well.I don't know if there was any particular William Castle gimmick associated with ZOTZ! but worth note is the opening moment where Castle yells ZOTZ! at the Columbia Pictures Logo, and the lady herself has an actual line or two. It's probably the only claim to fame this film will ever have, except for being a famous turkey.

Wizard-8 Director William Castle, upon seeing the end results of this movie of his, seemed to have realized that this movie wasn't up to his previous movies. For one thing, the gimmick that he came up for this movie was to give patrons a copy of the coin seen in the movie. (Whoopie!) *I* certainly thought that this was one of his weakest efforts.The premise of the movie, while not really original (even when the movie was made), still did have some promise. But there are two main problems that shoot down the movie. The first is that the characters act pretty stupid for most of the movie. Our hero is a college professor, yet the coin-related actions he does suggest he has put little thought into what he has discovered and what he should do with it.The second problem is related to that first problem, in that most of the movie is devoted to him *not* using the coin to his advantage (which is what most people would do), or being responsible with the coin. You will keep wondering just when some conflict will come into the movie, and he will be forced to struggle, to bring some ACTION into the movie. Eventually (after more than an hour of the running time has passed), our hero is challenged, but he acts (again) so stupidly when someone with even average intelligence would figure out how to use the coin to end the conflict in just a few minutes.Not even worth two cents.

grizzledgeezer Charles Miller's excellent review pretty much says it all. One can only hope Mr. Karig got a goodly sum for the movie rights. (Yeah. Sure.)If you have fond memories of this film -- and especially if you don't -- the novel is worth looking up, if only to see (as if you had to be told) how Hollywood hacks like William Castle can ruin an interesting story by assuming the audience is just too stupid to understand anything that might provoke thought. (One might also locate "The Circus of Dr. Lao", to see how George Pal butchered/eviscerated/raped a magnificent novel.)"Zotz!" the novel is unusual in that it has illustrations -- more like cartoons, actually. The only one I remember is that of a young woman coming to visit Dr. Jones who has her clothes blown off by a lightning strike.Regardless, your time would be much better spent with the novel than the film. Which is almost always the case.PS: Since writing this review, I got a copy of the novel and reread it. It's even better than I remembered, but it's not a story that lends itself to a straightforward film adaptation. That, however, does not justify William Castle appropriating the cheaply appealing part of the story, and ignoring everything else. Had he done it "properly", he would have anticipated "Indiana Jones" by 20 years.