Scott--

I loved The Ruins, but I recommended it to friends who, just as you said, absolutely hated it, called it predictable, hated the characters, whatever. But I personally have never been so creeped out reading a book--my jaw was literally dropped half the time.

I also had the chance to read The Ruins screenplay, and while it wasn't perfect, I think it still remains true to the spirit of the book.

I think what ruins The Ruins is trying to make too much out of it -- I don't think it's the most artistic horror in the world, and those who read it expectinge "literature" are bound to be disappointed.

Finally--Stephen King's not the only one who loved this book. It was on the top of every major book critic's list. Lev Grossman of Time nearly put it on his ten best of the year, only to bump it out at the last minute.

So don't fret! I think there's plenty in there to appreciate!

Clayton, I think you may have hit the nail right on the head. Perhaps these disgruntled users were looking for a knockout punch instead of a straight right jab. You have to admit, it's almost like King is passing down the crown to Scott Smith -- people were expecting to be blown away to the caliber of THE SHINING or CARRIE. To get a comment like that and get a good novel when people are expecting a great novel might throw them off.

At any rate, you got me! I'm in, I'll read and decide for myself.

As for the movies you mentioned we may have seen before, actually yes. All the ones you mentioned (except Poltergeist of course) are remakes of Asian horror movies. It's not just Hollywood that re-hashes ideas, it's international! Then people here just remake the movie for US audiences. I have heard that the original Tai Shutter is good, and it is on my list of movies to watch.

And as for Stephen King...well, I've not put much stock in anything he has said or written for a very long time. The final straw was the ending for Needful Things. Which, after going the whole book along for the ride, I felt that he just pulled an ending out of the air because he was on deadline. Nothing he has done recently has made up for that, at least for me. The one scene from Family Guy says it all:

Stephen King: Now for my 300th novel, a couple... is attacked... by a giant lamp monster.
Editor: You're not even trying anymore are you?

Oh, but the ones you mentioned, like Carrie and The Shinning? Great. His classics will always be good.

Jessika: I have to agree with you on NEEDFUL THINGS. I was a crack-smokin' King junkie until that one. A can of peanut brittle? What? It did read like he ran out of time.

But still, the man's word carries a lot of weight in the horror community, and with damn good reason. He's at that level where his opinion can sell tens of thousands of books. He ain't no Oprah, but his comment will sell more books than, say, some jackass author who writes a blog for AMCTV.com ...

Unless the prospective buyer is someone who's familiar with the both of you.

Whenever I see a rave comment by Mr. King on a book, I tend to add the proverbial grain of salt. The reason is my current impression that, as with J. I. Packer in the evangelical community, one can always count on Mr. King for a rave comment. Now, I respect both Dr. Packer and Mr. King; they know what they're talking about, and they write very well. (Indeed, I have as much fun reading King's nonfiction as his fiction--Danse Macabre is a delight.) But I've never heard either of them trash a book, or even give a lukewarm approval.

Whereas you've given us readers (and listeners! "Original Junkie" here) the full spectrum of your opinions. I know you don't have a binary blurb-switch (1="FANTASTIC!" 0="BURN!"). So I tend to expect a sober--if you'll forgive the word--and reasoned opinion.

In a nutshell: Okay, so Mr. King raved about this work. When has he not raved about something in public?

Michael: You bring up an excellent point. Sir King does support the people he likes, which is part of his general class and good-ol' boy charm. But come on man, "The best horror novel of the new century?" That goes a bit beyond a pat on the back and a nice "attaboy!"

Besides, King should have saved that blurb for ME! I'll be having words with him, that's for damn sure. Just as soon as I can get him to take a meeting. And that doesn't look very promising, judging from that restraining order he took out on me last year ...

Im going to go see the Ruins for sure. Reading not so much but thats because my time is limited so I only read books that I want to read.

I will say though If I hear a very very very bad review for a movie I might have been on the fence On I won't see it (in theatres at any rate) ie 10,000 bc or Doomsday. But the same goes if I hear a realy good review. I'll go see it ie Never Back Down.

NOW this isn't to say that I take everyones review into mind. Certain people/reviews I listen to others I don't care about. i.e. ebert and robert don't really feel that the fit in for me.

In regards to the King remark we all have things that we think are amazing and perfection where as other people think were batshit crazy for liking them. Maybe this is King's one vice. I thought 3:10 to Yuma was better then No country and I've been called more then once a dumbass because of this.

and there's this novel INFECTED I love it but when I told me friends they chased me out of town with pitch forks not sure why that was.........

I put *some* weight to user reviews, but I try to take into account what exactly they say they like or don't like. For example I've found that with horror movies there seems to be two fairly distinct groups: those who who dig the gross/gore/shock type horror movie, and those who dig the fun/campy/"sometimes stuff jumps out and goes Boo!" type horror movies, and if a particular movie doesn't fall into their preferred type, they'll give it a bad review. For example I fall into the "camp fan" group, and there are some horror flicks that I love that are just really fun to watch, but gore fans will constantly rip on them as "not scary enough." (As an example I'm a fan of much of Dark Castle's work).
BTW "Christine" is, in my opinion, the best of the King book-to-movie transformations (possibly even more so than The Shining), and although there have been a number of other "killer car" movies out there over the decades, none have done anywhere near as brilliant a job of creating an evil antagonist character out of a non-speaking, non-feeling hunk of metal as this movie & book did - I absolutely felt it was worth a spot on my DVD shelf.

Re: You have to admit, it's almost like King is passing down the crown to Scott Smith.

King already did pass down the crown. About 20 years ago to Clive Barker. Didn't work out so well. Barker imploded and King retired. But then a Dodge Caravan knocked him around and he seems to have forgotten both events.

But that aside, Scott Smith is the new King? Puh-lease. It takes him ten years to write a friggin' book! I haven't read The Ruins yet, but I did read A Simple Plan. It was okay, but I'd be hard-pressed to even call it horror.

I'm pretty sure King is just flippin' the pages of the HWA directory and stabbing his finger at the names, now, hoping one of those bastards will stop flinging the crown back at him...preferably not mounted on the hood of a van.

Clayton - how did you get your hands on the screenplay for The Ruins? I ask this because I'm a huge fan of the book, and have been tracking the progress of the film for a long time. It's easily my most anticipated, and early reports point to it being a great movie. Again, any help would be appreciated.