One Shocking Moment (1965) from Tuna and Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Tuna's notes

Directed, written and produced by Ted V. Mikels, One Shocking Moment is based on a familiar grindhouse premise, a cautionary tale about rampant sexuality in LA, and how it nearly ruins the marriage of a Midwest couple. The husband was relocated to L.A. with a big promotion, and they are soon in a new apartment with a shiny new company car. Their neighbors are two female roommates, a great-looking woman who doesn't much worry about closing her front door when undressing, and a bi-sexual nightclub owner. The husband gets along great in the new company, and also begins an affair with the boss's secretary, while the wife sits home alone worrying. It all comes to a head at a party in "one shocking moment."

I thoroughly enjoyed the fashions in this film. This depicts the period just before mod, and is what I think we called Ivy League. I still have a half inch wide necktie somewhere. This is what the well-dressed high school boy wore to dances. In a few short years, fashion would make its way through embroidered denim jackets and bellbottoms, Nehru jackets, and then to the leisure suit, which still stands as mankind's supreme fashion achievement.

This has broader appeal than the typical grindhouse effort, making it a real rarity because grindhouse is one of those genres that seldom has any crossover appeal at all.



  • This disc includes two other films:  The Abnormal Female and The Maidens of Fetish Street
  • There are no widescreen versions
  • Bonus 8mm erotic loop "Punishment Party"
  • Gallery of sixties sex stills with audio oddities
  • Bonus trailers



Maureen Gaffney, who had a brief career in the mid 60s both in front of and behind the camera, was very believable as a blonde bombshell, and showed breasts and buns in three scenes.

Scoop's notes

Colorful Ted Mikels is often cited as a strong candidate for the shiny, imaginary trophy awarded to the worst producer/director of all time, a claim frequently supported by the nomination of The Worm Eaters, which he produced, as one of the worst films. The Worm Eaters is virtually a Kurosawa film compared to The Girl in Gold Boots, which is probably one of the ten worst I've ever seen, and certainly deserves to be in IMDb's all-time bottom 100. (It was once in the bottom thirty, but has since been edged out by the stiff competition.) Astoundingly, Mikels has created another film, The Astro-Zombies, with an even lower score!

 I haven't seen One Shocking Moment, but I suppose that it will eventually end up with an IMDB score in the low 4's, consistent with the rest of Mikels's career output. His career median is 4.2, with nothing higher than 5.4

  1. (5.40) - The Black Klansman (1966)
  2. (4.90) - The Corpse Grinders 2 (2000) (V)
  3. (4.48) - Mark of the Astro-Zombies (2002) (V)
  4. (4.42) - The Doll Squad (1974)
  5. (4.33) - Cauldron: Baptism of Blood (2004) (V)
  6. (4.16) - 10 Violent Women (1982)
  7. (3.42) - The Corpse Grinders (1972)
  8. (3.28) - Blood Orgy of the She Devils (1972)
  9. (3.05) - Girl in Gold Boots (1969)
  10. (2.55) - The Astro-Zombies (1968)

You may notice a twenty-year gap in his filmography. After a slow time in the 1980s and 1990s, Mikels is making a comeback in straight-to-DVD films in the new millennium, including sequels to Astro-Zombies and Corpse Grinders! He was 75 years old when he directed Cauldron: Baptism of Blood, and he's currently working on another new film. He also has his own website:

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major reviews online.

The People Vote ...

  • IMDb summary. There are not enough votes for a statistically meaningful score.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Our own guideline:

  • A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre.
  • B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. In order to rate at least a B-, a film should be both a critical and commercial success. Exceptions: (1) We will occasionally rate a film B- with good popular acceptance and bad reviews, if we believe the critics have severely underrated a film. (2) We may also assign a B- or better to a well-reviewed film which did not do well at the box office if we feel that the fault lay in the marketing of the film, and that the film might have been a hit if people had known about it. (Like, for example, The Waterdance.)
  • C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by people who enjoy this kind of movie. If this is your kind of movie, a C+ and an A are indistinguishable to you.
  • C means it is competent, but uninspired genre fare. People who like this kind of movie will think it satisfactory. Others probably will not.
  • C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie, but genre addicts find it watchable. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film, but films with this rating should be approached with caution by mainstream audiences, who may find them incompetent or repulsive or both. If this is NOT your kind of movie, a C- and an E are indistinguishable to you.
  • D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-. Films rated below C- generally have both bad reviews and poor popular acceptance.
  • E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre.
  • F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C+. Lacking any positive reviews or evidence of wide popularity, this cannot be a B-, but this has a broader appeal than the typical grindhouse effort, making it a real rarity because grindhouse is one of those genres that seldom has any crossover appeal.

Return to the Movie House home page