GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

MaximusGuitarius The Curse of the Starving Class is one of the most important things in my life. It was the play that made me want to be a playwright. It was play that made me fall in love with theatre for something more than just something to do to pass my time in high school. I encourage everyone of you to go out and read it, along with all other Sam Shepard plays you can get your hands on.Since I learned a movie version was made of it a long time ago, I had been looking for it all over the place, and tonight I was lucky enough to catch it from the very beginning on IFC. I must say, I loved this movie. They changed some things, omitted some (which made me a little angry) but over all, it was excellent. It was exactly how it should be, in all of it's ass dragging glory.Let's get out my complaints first. Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a rant about how the play is far superior to the movie. This wasn't the play, it's the movie. It was different. It's hard to keep that in mind, but you have to while watching it.(*SPOILERS*. Skip the next two paragraphs if you do not wish to know key events and the ending.)The first thing I have to complain about is they told you about Weston's bad purchase of land far too early in the movie. It was something that was more effective learning about later. The second is the total omission of the eagle and cat story. This was the most beautiful moment in the play, if not one of the most beautiful moments in theatre. But, since this was a movie, I understand the need to leave out things that aren't really important to the plot so that it moves nicely (Though that almost defeats the purpose of Sam Shepard.). The third is that they explained the significance of Wesley wearing his father's clothes way too much. I felt that it was more effective for the audience to infer what it meant, rather than them to come out and say it. The fourth, and last problem, was the end. They totally changed the ending. In the movie, Emerson and Slater didn't come back for their money in the end, and Ella didn't blow up in the car, she just rode away on her horse. The way they ended the movie is far different from the play, but like I said, they are different, so you have to keep that in mind. It was effective, how they ended it. Emerson and Slater letting it go, and Ella not dying. Not as good, but still effective.Now for the things that I absolutely loved about the movie. THE P***ING! I loved this moment in the play, and they kept it in the movie. Wesley p***es all over his sister's school project. This was a beautiful moment that meant a lot. The scene when Des comes into the house and turns the lightbulb in the kitchen on. That was a wonderful choice. I guess you would have to have read the play a few times, and seen the movie to understand what this meant. The whole thing centered around how they were starving and there was no food in the house. When Des screwed the lightbulb in, this (to me) symbolized that now they could afford food. How you ask? Well, where is food, and light in the same place? The fridge. Now that they have money to buy food, they now have a reason to open the fridge. I loved this. When Wesley strips down, he runs through the field naked. This left me thinking (I dunno why) that this was almost necessary to the film. There were a lot more moments that I loved, but I really can't put my finger on them right now. I'm going to have to watch it a few more times.The whole film was great. I loved it. All of you should watch it. As Weston explained in the movie, everyone needs a good hard table to sleep on once in a while to remind you where you've come from. This movie was my hard table to sleep on. It brought me back to years ago when I decided to devote my life to attempting to write something that even resembled art.Some people hated it because it supposedly drug on and on. I'm going to have to agree, but that is how it was meant. If you do not have the patience to view this fine piece of cinema. You will thoroughly enjoy it. Oh, and consider yourself hereby warned about James Woods' full frontal nudity shot if you are easily offended.

jholtz Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.

Salgirl This message mainly goes out to satisil2. Have you read the play? Nothing happens. That's it. It just goes and goes and goes. . . Not to say I didn't enjoy it, I'm quite a Sam Shepered fan, myself (for a real thrill, watch True West)but that's how his plays are. It's more about the characters than the plot. Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it. Pretty good depiction of the dirt poor (or starving class, as one may call it)

shark-19 Curse of the Starving Class showcases the fantastic acting talents of Woods, Bates, Thomas, and most notably, Randy Quaid who fits the bill of the sleazy desert-realtor to a tee. James Woods' portrayal of an alcoholic father to a farm family way, waaay down on their luck makes for great acting, but not quite good enough to make this film MOVE. I kept waiting for this story to turn around and pay off somehow, but by the end I still felt dragged down into poverty.