Party Animalz (2004) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

In theory, this should really be my kind of movie.

A couple of slacker house painters from East L.A. get to paint a ritzy Beverly Hills mansion while the owners are off doing rich person stuff in Gstaad or The Seychelles or someplace like that. Of course, the painters decide that this is an excellent opportunity to invite all of their barrio buddies for a big, noisy, orgiastic fete in the untended mansion.

From there on, it's topless chicks, pool parties, lost virginity, guys drilling peepholes, drugs, spicy food, salsa music, burro porn, and pretty much every other thing that makes life worth living.

Works for me. I wish I had been there for the party.


  • Breasts from Radha Nilia and about a half dozen unidentified extras.
  • Buns from three naked guys.

Unfortunately, it didn't work in the movie.

This is not a complicated formula, but they managed to screw it up. The jokes aren't funny. The gross-out humor is gross without being humorous. The performers seem to be mostly amateurs. Even the damned topless chicks are either out of focus or in funky lighting.

Oh, yeah, and the writer had no idea how to end it, so they just sort of drifted off into the credits.

DVD info from Amazon

  • Unbelievably enough, this DVD has a full length director's commentary. a "making of" featurette, and a stills gallery!

The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 5.7/10. Sort of. IMDb has something screwed up royally. Eight males score it 1.7. Three females score it a perfect 1.0. If you weight those scores, the resulting 1.5 would be about the right score for this movie. IMDb also shows that there are only 13 votes, but five of them voted a perfect 10.So that would mean eight people votes some other score, right? But elsewhere, they claim that "all 10" US voters scored it a one. None of this makes any mathematical sense at all.
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, this is an E, maybe even an F, because the performances seem amateurish, and some scenes are out of focus. It's just not any good. It really is lacking any of the things you might want from this kind of movie. It tries to show you a good time, but doesn't really know how.

Return to the Movie House home page