Assault of the Party Nerds 2: The Heavy Petting Detective (1995) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

Has there ever been a movie where the sequel was more eagerly anticipated than Assault of the Party Nerds? Not even Star Wars could generate that kind of anticipation for Empire Strikes Back.

The original Party Nerds movie was made for $40,000 in four days, a quickie from the Jim Wynorski - Fred Olen Ray school of filmmaking, as created and assembled by that school's star pupil, their hope for the new generation, Richard Gabai.

When I say "created and assembled", I'm not using that phrase casually. I have not seen that first film, but in the second one, Gabai is the star, director, producer, editor, songwriter, scriptwriter, casting director, cinematographer ... oh, yeah, and his band recorded the music. Gabai is the Grade-Z Edward Norton - he even resembles him physically.


Michelle Bauer and Linnea Quigley supply toplessness in humor-oriented sex scenes.

Maureen LaVette appears as a dominatrix in a see-through top.

De'Ann Power supplies some additional toplessness as a bachelor party stripper.

Rhonda Shear kept her top on but provided acres of cleavage.

The economical use of personnel didn't stop at Gabai himself. The female lead was the bartender at his favorite watering hole, and had never worked in a film before. She did OK, but never worked again. Other non-showbiz buddies rounded out the cast. Gabai hired Burt Ward (Robin, the Boy Wonder) to be a corporate bigwig, and Ward showed up with his wife, so Ward's wife in real life became the bigwig's wife in the script. Actress Tane McClure also laid down some vocal tracks (her singing is pretty decent!). Other interesting cast members include Rhonda "Up All Night" Shear and Arte "Verrrry Interesting" Johnson.

DVD info from Amazon

  • The DVD transfer itself is weak, and there's no widescreen version. It's a 4:3, filled with noise and artifacts and motion blur.

  • The features are pretty solid. There are five filmed interviews, a director's commentary, a "behind the scenes" featurette, a stills gallery, and some other lesser features.

There are two conflicts to be resolved in the script. (1) The Party Nerds are about to be evicted from their frat house. (2) One of the evil snooty frat boys has now become an evil corporate exec, and is scheming to steal his father-in-law's company.

Gabai, now graduated from the Party Nerd house and working as a detective, must keep the evil snobby Bud from getting the company and the frat house.

The shooting schedule was doubled to eight days for the sequel, so you can bet that the production values are positively lavish, as reflected in the care that went into the DVD box, which refers to the geeky lads as "Part Nerds". No idea what the other part is. Possibly Pekinese.

Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry Interestink  

                                         Holy Career Path, Batman!


What do you get when you cross a frat exploitation film with a soft-core? Assault of the Party Nerds II: Heavy Petting Detective (1993).

How well does it work? IMDB readers have it at 2.6/10, which is way over-generous.

We have several B bimbos who spend some of their time naked or scantily dressed, and the rest proving that they can't act or deliver lines at all. There is no plot, but rather two simultaneous sub-plots going on. In the first, an ex jock is trying to get his wife to sign her father's business over to him, so he can dump her and steal the company. Frankly, if Michael Bauer were my wife, I would also be trying to get rid of her, based on her performance here. One of her best friends, Linnea Quigley, is trying to marry a rich man, and we see her in bed with the candidates. The second sub-plot involves Artie Johnson of Laugh-In fame, playing a national fraternity director who is trying to save the local chapter of the nerd's fraternity.

The Critics Vote

  • No major reviews on line

The People Vote ...


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.

My 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. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. 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. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. 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-.

Based on this description, Scoop says, "this is a D+. Silly, good natured fun with zero in terms of production values. It is likeable enough to appeal to people who enjoy the whole grade-z film scene and want to see Michelle Bauer and Linnea, but other moviegoers will find it appalling, as evidenced by the 2.6/10 at IMDB. I couldn't bring myself to grade it a C- (recommended at the minimal standard for genre buffs). It has a few good moments, but just doesn't have enough professionalism to entertain as a "straight" movie. It isn't a good softcore either. Because it is light on nudity and the DVD quality is poor, it doesn't have enough flesh or good enough flesh to be a worthwhile titillation film either." Tuna says, "D-. I can honestly see no reason whatsoever to watch this DVD. It would have been better used for an AOL CD."

Return to the Movie House home page