. . . H.P. Lovecraft's short story "Cool Air" is totally plagiarized from Edgar Allan Poe's tale entitled "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar." Lacking the budget for period costumes, this 2006 Picturization of COOL AIR brings the yarn to the present and pads it out with every trick known to Cinemakind. Allegedly clocking in at "78 minutes," that already puny length includes a drawn-out 6 minutes, 13 seconds of opening credits and a snail's crawling 7 minutes, 41 seconds of closing credits. When you subtract 13 minutes, 54 seconds of credits from a 77-minute, 43-second running time, you're left with a mere 63 minutes, 49 seconds of movie. This is bad enough, but every shot in this film seems to be repeated ten times, with most of the dialog echoed again and again. A skilled editor easily could condense what's presented in the way of a story here to ten minutes or less. For viewers who NEED something about 80 minutes long as a sleep aid, I'd suggest skipping COOL AIR. Get one of those burning yule log DVD's instead. This will provide a better plot, superior special effects, and more natural acting than does COOL AIR. Plus, you'll probably sleep better!
9 Reviews
Cool Air: What the actual fudge was that?
Platypuschow26 August 2018
I was drawn to Cool Air due to my love of the works of H P Lovecraft, his works were intricately woven and though not familiar with this particular tale I felt confident.
Sadly I keep forgetting that folks have the nasty habit of butchering his material and that I've seen a laundry list of adaptations that have been less than flattering.
Cool Air is possibly the worst of the bunch, it tells the story of a man who moves into a building with mysterious lodger that peaks his interest. The plot beyond that is disjointed, barely followable and incoherent at it's best.
Lovecraft has done so much fantastic work, why does it keep falling into the hands of the least competent individuals?
Awful stuff, do not be tempted by it being a Lovecraft adaptation you WILL be disappointed.
The Good:
It's Lovecraft
The Bad:
Plot is an absolute mess
Audio quality is terrrible
Simply looks cheap
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
The writers don't know what an oxymoron is
Sadly I keep forgetting that folks have the nasty habit of butchering his material and that I've seen a laundry list of adaptations that have been less than flattering.
Cool Air is possibly the worst of the bunch, it tells the story of a man who moves into a building with mysterious lodger that peaks his interest. The plot beyond that is disjointed, barely followable and incoherent at it's best.
Lovecraft has done so much fantastic work, why does it keep falling into the hands of the least competent individuals?
Awful stuff, do not be tempted by it being a Lovecraft adaptation you WILL be disappointed.
The Good:
It's Lovecraft
The Bad:
Plot is an absolute mess
Audio quality is terrrible
Simply looks cheap
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
The writers don't know what an oxymoron is
Slow, Short, Yawn
in198422 May 2013
2.5 of 10. You don't want to be stuck in a theater with nowhere to go when watching this, but not because it's scary. Despite its shortness, it feels painfully slow and I needed to increase the playback rate to get through.
The acting and the FX are not at fault in this. The story and script simply have nothing of interest to share. Worse, obvious parts that needed updating to adjust for the age of the story it's based upon didn't get updated. Setting the leftovers of the 1980s in decay and the thin, white Apple notebook computer is a clear indication they wanted to provide a modern interpretation.
Instead, it feels like a late 1940s/early 50s Hollywood script using tricks to hide the lack of substance. At best, an addition to an existing TV soap opera where the expectations and quality are already low.
The acting and the FX are not at fault in this. The story and script simply have nothing of interest to share. Worse, obvious parts that needed updating to adjust for the age of the story it's based upon didn't get updated. Setting the leftovers of the 1980s in decay and the thin, white Apple notebook computer is a clear indication they wanted to provide a modern interpretation.
Instead, it feels like a late 1940s/early 50s Hollywood script using tricks to hide the lack of substance. At best, an addition to an existing TV soap opera where the expectations and quality are already low.
why, oh why
Tinytinusje11 April 2014
The story in itself is good, but the script lacks any tension build up. Mostly because the acting is very animated and unrealistic. Just like the very, very bad voice over (voice overs in Horror movies do not work) The soundtrack makes the whole thing even worse, like a low quality 80's soft porn movie. There is not a flinch of tension, terror or horror in it. Even a 3th year old would be bored. Also the house interior lacks character just like the actors. No interesting camera angles, no special lighting effects. It is very bland. With the location, so much more could have been done. Because the exterior of the house does work. The whole does not do justice to the original story, Hopefully someone will make a good adaption more in the line of insidious.
Amateurish, but clearly done with love
siderite17 May 2015
The movie has flaws, some bigger than others, but in the end it is a decent, well acted, well written adaptation of Lovecraft's short story with the same name.
If you know Lovecraft you know how difficult it is to transform his writing into film. The 2006 adaptation does this well by translating 1923's New York to an isolated place close to L.A. in the 2000s, Dr. Munoz to a woman and adding more characters. I expected poor acting from the mainly unknown cast, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that they all did a very good job.
Unfortunately, this could not really fill the entire length of a full movie so that film feels unbearably drawn out. This could have been a really enjoyable 40 minute short, but instead it lasts for one hour and seventeen minutes of narrating slowly and the same melody playing incessantly in the background.
Bottom line: a decent adaptation of a Lovecraftian short story that is not related to the Chtulhu mythos. The element of romantic tension and the various characters that were added were refreshing and enhanced the story. Everybody played well and it felt like a filmed play. Unfortunately the movie suffers from terrible pacing and it would have benefited from a shorter cut.
If you know Lovecraft you know how difficult it is to transform his writing into film. The 2006 adaptation does this well by translating 1923's New York to an isolated place close to L.A. in the 2000s, Dr. Munoz to a woman and adding more characters. I expected poor acting from the mainly unknown cast, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that they all did a very good job.
Unfortunately, this could not really fill the entire length of a full movie so that film feels unbearably drawn out. This could have been a really enjoyable 40 minute short, but instead it lasts for one hour and seventeen minutes of narrating slowly and the same melody playing incessantly in the background.
Bottom line: a decent adaptation of a Lovecraftian short story that is not related to the Chtulhu mythos. The element of romantic tension and the various characters that were added were refreshing and enhanced the story. Everybody played well and it felt like a filmed play. Unfortunately the movie suffers from terrible pacing and it would have benefited from a shorter cut.
A Lovecraft Story that didn't need to be adapted
JoeB13121 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Lovecraft's original story is only about nine pages.
This movie pads it out into a hour and half of boredom, unnecessary characters and a gender switch of the protagonist. (Lovecraft had almost no female characters in his stories.)
It looks like everyone involved in this film was related, and it kind of looks like one of those awful fan films you see on YouTube without the good CGI.
Of course, the movie is made a bit worse by the fact that we know now that "Science doesn't work like that", and they try to add a supernatural element that Lovecraft didn't bother with. (Supernatural elements and C'Thulhu being in his future.) We also see creepy scenes of a narrator hitting on an an autistic girl.
The dialog is just dreadful when they try to add onto Lovecraft's original narrative.
This movie pads it out into a hour and half of boredom, unnecessary characters and a gender switch of the protagonist. (Lovecraft had almost no female characters in his stories.)
It looks like everyone involved in this film was related, and it kind of looks like one of those awful fan films you see on YouTube without the good CGI.
Of course, the movie is made a bit worse by the fact that we know now that "Science doesn't work like that", and they try to add a supernatural element that Lovecraft didn't bother with. (Supernatural elements and C'Thulhu being in his future.) We also see creepy scenes of a narrator hitting on an an autistic girl.
The dialog is just dreadful when they try to add onto Lovecraft's original narrative.
Great adaption...
paul_haakonsen21 May 2013
As an avid fan of Lovecraft's work and most things Lovecraftian, then it was with some expectation that I sat down to watch this movie. Especially as it wasn't a huge Hollywood production, which just added to the enjoyment of the movie, to be honest.
"Cool Air" delivered some really nice performances of the people hired for the various roles, especially as this movie is character driven and not really driven by a scary mood or the ability to shock the audience time and time again. This is as much a character driven movie as it is a story driven one.
This 2006 version of "Cool Air" is definitely well worth a watch if you enjoy the writings of H.P. Lovecraft. And even if you are unfamiliar with his work, there is some entertainment value to be found in this movie, as the story is nicely told and well executed. This is a great adaption based on Lovecraft's timeless piece of writing.
Despite this being a fairly low budget movie, then the director managed to get things to work out nicely, without making use of dazzling CGI effects. There is a bit usage of effects, and they worked out well enough.
Entertaining and enjoyable, "Cool Air" is well worth your time if you are looking for something to watch.
"Cool Air" delivered some really nice performances of the people hired for the various roles, especially as this movie is character driven and not really driven by a scary mood or the ability to shock the audience time and time again. This is as much a character driven movie as it is a story driven one.
This 2006 version of "Cool Air" is definitely well worth a watch if you enjoy the writings of H.P. Lovecraft. And even if you are unfamiliar with his work, there is some entertainment value to be found in this movie, as the story is nicely told and well executed. This is a great adaption based on Lovecraft's timeless piece of writing.
Despite this being a fairly low budget movie, then the director managed to get things to work out nicely, without making use of dazzling CGI effects. There is a bit usage of effects, and they worked out well enough.
Entertaining and enjoyable, "Cool Air" is well worth your time if you are looking for something to watch.
YOU WIELD A MEAN WHACKER?
nogodnomasters4 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The film is about 70 minutes long with an additional 7 minutes of end credits. It is based on an H.P. Lovecraft book which immediately put it on my must see list. I was very disappointed. The film starts out with a blurb about the Weret Hekau, a story which stays on the screen too long so as to add time to the production.
The film opens, ends, and is filled with first person narration by Charles Baxter (Morgan Weisser) a wannabe screen writer with writer's block. He is renting a room in a secluded house which includes two other guests who live private lives, the most intriguing is Dr. Shockner (Crystal Laws Green) who lives in a cool room in the upstairs, even though basements are easier to keep cool.
The narration was a boring monotone which caused me to nod off from time to time. Cynthia Curnan took an interesting book and shredded it. No horror or suspense. No intensity. The initial meeting of Baxter and Shockner was equally long and boring as we see a prolonged picture of his face while we hear their monotone voices. Jenny Dare Paulin provides the token eye candy as Estella, a slightly autistic woman.
The low budget aspect didn't allow for much more than someone telling a story. This apparently is a 2006 film re-released.
Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. What did I do with my "Re-Animater" DVD?
The film opens, ends, and is filled with first person narration by Charles Baxter (Morgan Weisser) a wannabe screen writer with writer's block. He is renting a room in a secluded house which includes two other guests who live private lives, the most intriguing is Dr. Shockner (Crystal Laws Green) who lives in a cool room in the upstairs, even though basements are easier to keep cool.
The narration was a boring monotone which caused me to nod off from time to time. Cynthia Curnan took an interesting book and shredded it. No horror or suspense. No intensity. The initial meeting of Baxter and Shockner was equally long and boring as we see a prolonged picture of his face while we hear their monotone voices. Jenny Dare Paulin provides the token eye candy as Estella, a slightly autistic woman.
The low budget aspect didn't allow for much more than someone telling a story. This apparently is a 2006 film re-released.
Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity. What did I do with my "Re-Animater" DVD?
One of the very best Lovecraft adaptations
morris-chase2421 August 2009
The original Lovecraft tale was set in a period when there was so much left to the readers imagination and life experiences were much more inside the head than experienced in reality. The world of the mind Lovecraft so exquisitely created has rarely if ever been duplicated in films of his works. With Cool Air we have maybe the very best adaptation ever because it doesn't attempt to show us what we fear or manipulate us with shocks or sounds. Instead this movie pulls the viewer into his or her imagination. And that is where we experience Lovecraft's sad, morbid tale of how far we will go to hold onto life or lives. The film makes your skin crawl and I found myself actually forgetting to breath. You hold everything so tightly and its almost unbearable tense, yet very moving. You really feel Lovecraft here and not some crazy "interpetation". Bravo to the writer for being a conduit for Lovecraft's world and actors for making you forget that these are performances. They create an almost documentary feel to the characters so you really believe in every moment. Not to be missed if you love Lovecraft!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
