A Crack in the Floor (2000) is a direct to DVD grade Z horror film. It has plenty of gore, but not much scare value. A small child is told by his extremely religious mother over his father's fresh grave that they have to avoid people and wait for Jesus to come. Not long after, he witnesses the brutal rape and death of his mother, and is knocked unconscious by her attackers. Cut to 33 years in the future. A couple of young hikers wander into his cabin. The cabin itself looks abandoned, and he lives beneath it in a secret basement. He observes them through a crack in the floor then kills them. The girl, Madelein Lindley shows her breasts in this scene. We then discover that there are lots of missing hikers, and at least 22 cars at the bottom of a local reservoir.

Meanwhile, 6 friends start off on a hiking trip to guess where? During the preparation for the trip, Justine Priestley shows buns and a nipple slip in a shower scene. In a film full of errors, the biggest is not getting the clothes off of busty Daisy McCracken. The biggest plot hole is that the kid, who was orphaned at age 9 or so, and killed every person who happened into his cabin, drove all of those cars into the reservoir. The film is full of snappy, hip, dialogue. For example, after being scared, one character says, "I think I have pudding in my wares."

Yes, this is every bit as bad as it sounds, and the worst news is that, in an homage to Hamlet, they killed everyone (except the murderer), leaving room for a sequel. This may be bad enough to gain cult status someday with bad movie fans. There are no reviews on line, and 8 IMDB readers are way too generous at 3.5/10. Part of this high score is due to the IMDB system of skewing votes. 5 of the 8 voters gave it a 1. This film is an F.

I looked at  Turkish Delight with a lot of nostalgia. I'm a product of "the 60's", that great flowering of the counter-culture from 1967-1974, a period which encompassed my university days in NYC. That time period had an attitude, and no place, not even San Francisco, reflected that attitude better than Amsterdam, so all those generational, class, and cultural struggles came back to me as I watched this film.

Having said that, let me add that Tuna and I disagree on this film. He thought it was excellent. I couldn't even watch it if it didn't have all the sex and nudity. It has plenty of talk, but no walk. It has a sophomoric script, a weepy ending, and plenty of the whole generational statement crap like riding bikes in traffic while putting flowers in the soldiers' guns in slow motion. It's kind of the cinematic equivalent of a garage band, or a Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland  "hey kids, let's make a movie" production.

Now, let me switch gears, and say this. Although I don't like it as an intellectual statement or as a  mainstream entertainment, I am willing to vote for it right now as the best exploitation movie ever made. The best. I'll put it up against I Like to Play Games or Lickerish Quartet or even against Wild Things as the single movie that supplies that most credible context for sex, sex talk, and nudity. And when you get right down to it, wouldn't you rather watch that than Citizen Fucking Kane? Plus it has enough of a female perspective, that it ultimately is a tittie movie you can take your wife to.

So I guess Tuna and I don't disagree on recommending it to you. Just on why. He liked it enough to watch it without the nudity, and I'd find it unbearable. But it has the nudity, and there's no changing that, so we both end up saying there are reasons to watch it.

I read that in terms of the number of tickets sold, this was the highest grossing film in Dutch history.

• Monique van de Ven (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14)

Louise Smith

Marusia Zach

The Nudity: Breasts in all three 'caps, plus bonus frontal nudity from Louise Smith.

The Movie: A realistic 'day in the life' movie about prostitutes in an upscale Manhattan brothel. Maltin gave it 3 1/2 stars. IMDb readers give it a 6.5.

Here's the breakdown: