^King's It has a pretty solid ending. Well, the ending ending isn't great, but the part that resolves most of the story with the turtle and **** was mindblowing.

"Running Man" was pretty solid all the way through. And way ahead of its time.

The Mist is pretty damn great. The movie adaption was TERRIBLE!!!!!! Also his collaboration with Peter Straub, The Talisman is amazing.

I read the novella after I saw the movie and agree that the original is much much better, but I still thought the movie was pretty good. The ending was an obvious executive decision to have a non-ambiguous ending and that really sucked, but otherwise it didn't really have too much going against it except for subpar acting (which is to be expected).

Some of the special effects were pretty lame.

*cough* says the guy lauding The Thing *cough*

I've only read about half the book, since the copy I got off a friend had about half the pages in the middle missing, but the ending lives up to the rest of the book?

Did King get better at endings as he went on, or was he just hit-or-miss? The only three of his books I think I've read all the way through were Carrie, Salem's Lot, and Pet Cemetary, all of which had goofy endings.

Carrie was amazing all the way until she left the prom, after which the concept was good, but, it being his first book, he clearly just didn't know how to write what he wanted to put on the page. I've only read his early works, but throughout that time at least, his prose was always merely serviceable, and I think that was very apparent at the end of that book, since if he had been a more accomplished writer the ending wouldn't have felt as flat. I do give him credit, however, for writing a more nihilistic ending than the movie, which was pretty good, but also flubbed the ending in more ways than just execution (After the prom the movie was just conceptually inferior, that very last scene was just kind of dumb, and don't get me started on the cheesy firehose part of the prom scene.)

P.S. I think that entire book was probably the main inspiration for Akira (even more than the movie, due to the relative similarity with the endings).

My criticisms for Salem's Lot and Pet Cemetery are identical. Both were fantastic in their own way (Salem's Lot is the only book to legitimately give me the heeby jeebies, and Pet Cemetery was a psychological triumph), but the endings felt like self-conscious attempts at making scenes that would work as Hollywood movies. Both were just bad, and ruined the brilliant vibes that each had meticulously built in almost self-consciously deliberate lessons in how to show the monster "too much".

As in the book? Cause the movie is pretty much considered one of the best horror movies of all time, though I have yet to watch the original. Was the book inferior, or was the movie just overrated?

The climax of the book is the best thing King's ever done tbh.

Nah, the movie. I agree that it's fantastic, but let's be honest, it had some pretty awful graphics.

I went to a squirrel park near my house. The squirrels were friendly.