Diane Ruth A truly disgustingly sick film that exploits women and glorifies sadistic misogyny. Cheaply made and a purely amateur effort at film making, this is not a horror film at all. It is the definition of torture porn. Women are violated, abused, murdered, and mutilated in every conceivable manner (any manner that a disturbed mind can conceive of, that is). Watching female butchery and listening to the plaintive, horrific cries of agony coming from helpless victims is neither art or entertainment. What is depicted here is not only ugly and extreme, it seems almost criminal. This is all simulated, of course, but at what point does the joy film makers take in such simulation become simply depraved self-gratification? This movie goes over the line from horror movie to an exercise in maniacal brutalization of women in graphic detail for no other reason than...? There is no reason. And no justification or excuse possible for this motion picture excrement. This amounts to an act of sociopathic acting out by mentally ill individuals allowed access to all that's needed to produce a cheap movie with nothing redeeming in it whatsoever. There are institutions offering the kind of help such so-called film makers desperately need. They should seek it out immediately before inflicting more emotional damage on an unsuspecting public and society.

bowmanblue Um, like in every slasher movie since the 1970s Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Before I watched The Watermen, I read some pretty terrible reviews on it (and then watched it anyway). Okay, it's no masterpiece, but its overall flaw is its lack of originality. It's about a group of teenagers who go on a boat and get picked off by a gang of mumbling nasty fishermen on another boat who want to turn them into fishfood. Basically, it's Texas Chainsaw on water.It's very low budget. Therefore don't expect too much gore and any nudity is pretty fleeting.After watching the film I couldn't really think of anything that bad about it, apart from I've seen it all before - not just once, but dozens of times. It's basically a carbon copy of every slasher film that's gone before it.Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with Watermen, but there's nothing original enough to make it right.

DjfunkmasterG I gave this film a 7 for many reasons. It is low budget, but the technical side of it is fantastic. It has very sick and depraved moments.A bunch of friends go fishing on a friends boat and end up trapped in the waters of of the Chesapeake Bay. They encounter a long lost clan of Fishermen known as the Watermen who set up mechanical failures on unsuspecting victims boats, they drug, rape them, and turn them into chum, which makes for better fishin' Does the story and plot have issues? of course it does, but the depths of depravity in which Matt Lockhart takes the clan of Watermen is nothing short of 70's exploitation grind house horror.Some of the sequences the unsuspecting boaters go through are well done in terms of their torture and circumstances. However, some of the acting by the cast can be downright cringe inducing at times.While it has its issues I think indie horror fans will enjoy it.

bikey1277 You've probably realized by now that the excellent viewer reviews are fake. Its just advertising. Movie trailers with words. Something like that. Don't buy into it. The movie is awful. Apparently this is Matt Lockhard's first venture into movie making. Honestly, Matt, if it were up to me this would your last one as well.The Watermen is supposed to be a low budget, lots of blood and guts slasher movie. There is no need for brilliant acting and a potentially Oscar-winning screenplay. Just keep it simple. SIMPLE, not retarded. The setup: 3 guys and 3 girls go on a fishing trip, their boat breaks down and they get stranded in the middle of the ocean only to be rescued by some fishermen who intend to cut them up and use their meat as fish and crab bait. Apparently the fish and crab just love human flesh. Like I wrote, low budget slasher. No need for a realistic plot. Even with that crazy premise you still could have pulled it off. But you didn't. I'm writing this as a warning to other horror nuts like me. Its not worth it. I actually feel like I've been insulted. Mr.Lockhard seems to think that some gratuitous nudity and fake blood is going to satisfy an average horror fan. In short, he seems to think horror fans are dumb. The plot, acting, dialogue, characters are all big contributors to the overall awfulness of the movie, but the execution is the real issue here. The movie is only an hour and a half long but it seems like its longer than The Titanic. At least a third of it are long, drawn out shots of people running away, people chasing the runaways, girls showering, the guys watching the girls showering,....I was fast-forwarding a lot because I didn't want to watch a girl run by the same tree for the third or fourth time. And that was despite the fact that one of her breasts was out on full display and I'm basically your average horny straight guy. I don't really know what to write about the bad guys of the movie, you know, the sadistic fishermen. The phrase "worst of the worst" comes to mind. And yes, the worst part of this awful movie are the bad guys. All I can remember are those yellow plastic pants and boots that fishermen wear moving around on the screen and all the while someone was muttering insanities like "I'm gonna git you" with a heavy southern accent in the background. I couldn't understand/hear half the things that were being said but that was fine with me because the things I did hear made me shake my head in disbelief. Even Richard Riehle, a veteran among actors, was awful in his role. There is no excuse for making such a mess of a movie. Being a rookie director doesn't cut it. It should have been simple, instead its in full on retard mode. Skip it. Unless you want a headache.