siderite 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.

martinejohanna 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.

in1984 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.

Paul Magne Haakonsen 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.