intro
horror movie is a novel by paul tremblay. it's relatively short, with the audio book clocking in around seven and a half hours. I read it in october of 2025 and really enjoyed it. both of my horror book clubs have it on the docket for discussion early in the year so I thought I would listen to the audiobook to refresh myself on the plot and also to experience the book in a different way, since I am not usually an audio book listener. given that I finished the audiobook a month before discussion time, I thought I would write a bit on my thoughts on the book/audiobook so that I remember them for book club. full spoilers to follow.
the audiobook
apparently there are two versions of the audiobook floating around. one that's a basic narrated version, and one that has multiple narrators and sound effects and music, leaning more into a radio play style. I listened to the latter version, and I kind of wish I had searched for the more basic version. some of the narrators had drastically different qualities in microphones, or the audio quality would change scene to scene.
I also generally found the added sound effects to be jarring and immersion breaking. in the written book, the movie script segments are written in italics to separate them visually from the rest of the narrative text. in the audiobook, the script segments use a different primary narrator than the "normal" text and also includes a different narrator for each character in the script. that is all perfectly fine. what is not fine is that the script segments are also filled with the sounds of the characters riffling through the pages of the script. I could tolerate it if it were just once at the begining of a script segment as an audio tell to let the listener know that the script was starting, but having it peppered often through the script segments was irritating. it also didn't really make sense to me then for them to have the other sound effects. are we supposed to take the audiobook as the actors just reading out the script to us, or actually acting it out on the other side of the microphone? the setting was uncertain.
related to the audio quality again, there were times that a narrator reading the script would have a subtle buzz/hum overlaid on their voice that would then suddenly cut off a few sentences later. whether it was intentional or not, it was (as I keep saying) incredibly jarring. I also didn't like the added music since the script in the book didn't mention music except for one part. but they didn't have music for the one part in the text that explicitly mentions a soundtrack.
my last gripe with the audiobook was a bit around 1:44:10 in the book, where the narrator flubs their line, is corrected by another narrator, and then comments "good thing I'm not reading this whole book". frankly that just felt unprofessional and just contributed to me feeling like I had no clue what setting the script segments were read in.
the story proper
when I first read the book, I really enjoyed it, giving it a 4/5. unfortunately that rating doesn't hold up on a reread. I don't hate the book, but its flaws are more obvious on second viewing. there are essentially three different mini novellas happening in this book: the past, the present, and the script of Horror Movie proper. the fact that there are three different stories (that do connect to each other, but are still separate) means that the plot of any one story on its own is slowed down by the interjections of the other two stories. while reading the book the overall story moves along at a fast pace, but when I zoomed out to look at the big picture, each individual story thread only had one or two major plot beats. it makes the book feel a little boring on a reread honestly! since your'e waiting for Something to happen and you Know that Something Must Happen, but it ends up taking much longer to Happen than you anticipate.
on a reread, the long scene in the script right before karson's death reeks of pretentiousness. it feels like paul tremblay is thumbing his nose at the indie horror scene and anyone who does something "weird" or "artsy". fwiw I would probably go see horror movie (the script in the book) in theaters, but the writing in the script drags on and on and on past the point of artistic choice and into parody. I didn't mind the artsy asides in the script for the most part, but this particular segment felt like us the listeners were taking the piss. I think the audiobook made it worse because I read pretty quickly so when I read the book this segment passed by pretty fast, versus when I listened to the audiobook I had to Sit There with it for what felt like the full five minutes it claimed to take.
on a reread I still enjoyed the unreliable narrator and the general surreal quality to his memories (and the main character's sense of being). I also still agree with my thoughts that the ending was abrupt and not satisfying and left too many questions on the table. I'm okay with not knowing anything, but in some ways the narrator's self proclaimed mystery made him feel like a brick wall. it also meant that the "present" storyline was the only one that didn't really end on a message, or main thesis. the script and the past all ended on cleo's suicidal tendencies. the present...? the dangers of nostalgia? the snubbing of present day horror? I am uncertain what I am intended to take away from it.
overall
so! where do I stand on horror movie. reviews on popular sites seem to be polarizing. a lot of people love it and a lot of people hate it. I think after a reread I am taking a very lukewarm take of it was Really Okay. there are parts about the book I really like and think are really interesting! the take on making a monster Just Because you're a stupid teen and don't know any better. the danger present on an indie horror movie set. but it kind of never picks at any of those themes hard enough for me to be satisfied. brings things up for you to think about but doesn't offer its own opinion for you to mull over. don't listen to the audiobook.