Cujo (1983) User Reviews

Realistic horror

[Tikkin · 6/10 · 23 February 2006]

I think of Cujo as "realistic horror" because it is something that could really happen. People really do get killed by rabid dogs...this film just exaggerates the truth a bit. I can't say I really enjoyed this film as it is not what I look for in horror films. It's a very good film - well acted, well directed, suspenseful and emotional, but it's not really "fun" to watch. It starts off with the dog getting infected, and from then on tension is built up slowly as you sense the dog is getting angrier and angrier. Eventually it snaps and starts killing people. The bulk of the film focuses on when Donna and her son are trapped in the broken down car because Cujo attacks whenever they try to leave. You can feel all the desperation, pain and isolation of Donna and her son as they lay trapped inside. It makes you think twice about dogs and certainly what you would do in such a situation. Would you run, attack the dog, or wait until help arrives?

This is not a fun, campy or cheesy horror film, so don't watch if you're a fan of cheese. It's for those who want to feel suspense, fear and pain.

Among my favorites.

[paulclaassen · 7/10 · 25 May 2020]

'Cujo' is not only one of my favorite 80's horror films, but also one of my favorite Stephen King films.

The film quickly sets up the back story and each character, so when they find themselves in peril, we're familiar with them and therfore root for them. The events leading to the finale is justified and believable.

The film's third act completely sucks you in and never gives you a moment to catch your breath. Clever photography significantly enhances the suspense. The incredibly realistic dog attack scenes are the best I've ever seen before and since 'Cujo'. Young Danny Pintauro is excellent in a dramatic role.

A King Classic

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 27 July 2014]

A friendly St. Bernard named "Cujo" contracts rabies and conducts a reign of terror on a small American town.

"Cujo" is more than just a monstrous dog, this is also a tale of infidelity and a family breakdown. This is what separates it from other animal attack films.

The New York Times called the film "predictable" and said, "Cujo is not as menacing or frightening as other film adaptations of King's popular stories and especially can not compare to the 1976 Carrie..." Now, that may be true. But let us not sell it short, either. Just about everyone, whether they have seen the film or not, knows what the word "Cujo" means... far more than, say, "Christine". So this is one of King's more deeply imprinted films, even if not the most creative.

Rabid Cujo

[flamingangel882 · 29 December 2002]

This movie was pretty good. I saw it on TV last Halloween, and it really set the mood. It's basically about a dog that gets rabies, and a mother and her son are trapped in the middle of nowhere (in their car that broke down, of all things) because the dog is terrorizing them. It's really pretty sad actually, because they show the dog chasing the rabbit into the cave where he gets the rabies, and the dog just seems so sweet and cute. It's pretty scary too, when the boy passes out from the heat in the car and needs water or SOMETHING. It obviously set that kind of situation for movies like Panic Room and Signs. It is really a pretty suspenseful movie with that psychological terror--it would scare the hell out of you if it happened to you.

Pretty good Stephen King adaption

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 5 August 2016]

1983 was a bit of a bumper year for cinematic versions of Stephen King novels. In that year alone we had Christine and The Dead Zone as well as Cujo. It would probably not be unfair to say that Cujo is the least good of the three but in all honesty there isn't a great deal in it, with all being pretty effective and nicely varied horror films. Out of those three, and unlike most King horror films in general, Cujo is not a supernatural horror movie and is based on a plausible idea. A woman and her young son become trapped in their broken down car in a remote junkyard when a St. Bernard dog, made rabid by a bite from an infected bat, lays siege to their vehicle in a murderous mood.

This one could be described as a high concept movie given the very basic nature of its set-up. In order to pad things out to feature length and to add some depth, we have quite a bit of character development in the first half of the movie, which focuses mainly on a dysfunctional family and the dramas that surround them. Once the action moves to the junkyard though, most of this is largely forgotten and the film essentially becomes an 'animal-attack' horror-thriller. Dee Wallace does some good work as the mother who has to deal with the trauma while having to comfort her young son, who it has to be said is involved in some pretty intense looking scenes which may have been quite full on for the young actor involved. But the scary scenes were often achieved by very clever editing, after all a St. Bernard is hardly the most threatening of beasts to base a horror movie on. The fast and clever edits do make this creature seem genuinely menacing. Less successful though was the soundtrack which compromised of a considerable amount of really terrible music which would have been better suited to a daytime TV melodrama than a suspenseful and thrilling feature film. But on the whole, this is a pretty decent and lean effort that gets the job done quite effectively.

Hardcore horror.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 10 December 2000]

Hardcore horror fans won't be disappointed (although for a while they may think they will be) with this extremely bloody and gruesome shocker. The attack scenes are about as intense as possible - the director almost pushes them TOO far. But the first half of the movie is plodding, filled with unnecessary scenes, and the kid's constant whining (although justified) is sure to get on your nerves. (**1/2)

A forgotten, yet worthy animal attack flick

[adamscastlevania2 · 6/10 · 17 September 2014]

(57%) With one of the thinnest plots in film history, this still manages to be quite a real good shocker. Most of the action takes place in a broken down car in the countryside during a super hot day as a big dirty, and very angry dog tries to attack and kill a poor young kid and his mother. The attacks themselves are really quite brutal and very well put together as the main characters really do go through hell and back with this rabid pooch. This is one of the better animal attack films that has for some unknown reason been more than a little bit forgotten about. Put this on if your kid wants to watch one of the terrible Beethoven sequels for the 100th time.

Doesn't do the novel justice...

[hrf119 · 4/10 · 19 July 2011]

After reading King's fantastic novel "Cujo" - off which the movie is clearly based - I was beyond excited to watch the movie. I wondered excitedly how they would accurately depict the intricate and emotional lives of the 8 or so main characters. After watching the movie I can say with confidence that they failed to do the job.

First off - many of the characters that are quite prominent in the novel and add to the intensity and suspense are given nothing but slight cameos in the movie, or are not shown at all. The Camber family, composed of Joe, wife Charity, and son Brett, might collectively have 25 lines which is ridiculous. Roger Breakstone, Sheriff Bannerman, Gary Pervier, George Meara and Steve Kemp as characters with clear motives and reactions in the novel, are all about as deep as paper in the film. Aunt Evvie Chambers, Holly and her family, and a few other minor characters have been omitted from the film completely.

If this wasn't bad enough, the main story was altered drastically, and there was no falling action whatsoever!

* SPOILER ALERT *

Tad Trenton lives in the movie! This huge change in plot completely takes away from the tragedy that Stephen King so wonderfully wrote. Also, Cujo is shot in the end. This quick, seemingly painless death allows the film to end quickly but totally ruins it. In the novel, the long, painful, graphic death of Cujo is, in a sense, justice being served. In the film there is no such thing.

Ultimately, this film is weak, not scary, and does not stay true to the novel. I had to read the novel in broad daylight because of how frightening it was, I watched the movie alone, in the dark, at night. The film is the terrible, shameful younger brother - nay - cousin of the original novel.

It might have you foaming at the mouth?

[lost-in-limbo · 6/10 · 14 March 2006]

A St. Bernard dog is playfully chasing a rabbit, but when the dog decides to pop its head into a burrow it's bitten by a rabies-infected bat and slowly over time it becomes a maliciously uncontrolled mutt. Which, it turns on its owner and also terrorises that of a unfaithful women and her son that came to get their vehicle repaired, but only to be trapped in their broken down car with rabid dog outside trying to get to them.

Beethoven… yep, I just couldn't stop thinking of the lovable Beethoven when watching this flick. That was one of my childhood favourites, but I guess it isn't going to be quite the same when I come across it again. I won't look a Beethoven the same way again. Anyhow, this is one of the King's better-made adaptations. Although, it's a long way from brilliant, it delivers a stable amount of interest and tension to proceedings. This was my second viewing of it and it has hardly lost any of that full-blooded impact it generated, especially the heart racing standoff between the dog and the trapped victims. I wouldn't be surprise that you don't think your watching a horror film to begin with, as the opening basis centres around a family melodrama, raising martial issues and work commitments. It kind of comes across as cheesy in its supposed sentiment in those moments.

Then it kicks into gear with the slow beginning making way for a crackerjack final 40 minutes of simple confined tension built around isolation. It also doesn't hold back on the vicious dog attacks with ample ferocity and raw suspense being belted out. Watching people being mauled apart by this giant scuffed up dog wasn't that pleasant at all. The gore effects were more than adequate and it looked the part of a rabid dog perfectly. But you couldn't help but feel sorry for the dog, as it's more of a victim then the people who he's terrorising. Honestly I cared more for the misunderstood pooch than the initial victims. The characters weren't entirely likable, with the exception of one or two, but I didn't connect with them in this mess. The story is simple and plays it straight, but that doesn't mean it avoids the familiar clichés. Although, it doesn't entirely hurt the film, well it kind of enhances it actually. A surprising factor I found was that the film's camera-work was well choreographed with plenty of swirling shots and when it needed to up the ante it became rather erratic to fit in with the mood. Also add in some glorious slow-mo. The score on the other hand I thought was forcefully unbalanced and didn't fit into the mood at times. The performances are all sturdy and very hard to knock. Dee Wallace-Stone was at the top of her game as the wayward wife and Danny Pintauro as her worried son was equally so. Daniel Hugh Kelly gives a likable performance as the father and of course the endearing dog is worth a mention too. The strong performances make this traumatic experience even more believable.

A tautly constructed and work-man like film that won't push the boundaries, but its intensely petrifying in its simple origins.

It's not a movie I pay to see again.

[filipemanuelneto · 2/10 · 23 October 2019]

This movie is basically about a dog that gets rabies after being bitten by a bat and then unleashes a murderous rage. Of course, there is a mother who protects her child from the furry monster's fury, which is an attempt to mess with our deepest feelings of empathy. It didn't work very well with me.

Inspired by a Stephen King book, which is probably better than the movie, the movie is histrionic and exaggerated from start to finish. Rabies disease is serious, but I never knew of any case that even resembles what the movie shows. That really was a problem for me, because I didn't believe in the movie. Then the whole plot is so predictable and basic that it didn't get me involved, nor did it get me stuck in the movie, wanting to see it all the way through.

I think Dee Wallace did a great job and is the actress who most contributes to the movie not being a complete fiasco. Far from merely screaming and running away or protecting her son, the actress was able to bring her character to life and show real dread.

A film that tells you that your demons will come back to haunt you.

[baumer · 8/10 · 16 July 1999]

We all know Cujo is a giant St. Bernard that has to kill because he is rabid. The film works as a horror film because of that concept, but this film and the story writer behind it believe that paybacks are a bitch. Retribution is always around the corner and when it is your time, you don't know if it is going to from a guy in a hockey mask, a massive great white shark,a 58 red and white Plymouth Fury, some idiot with long finger knives or a lovable Saint Bernard. Whatever it is though, sin always accounted for. Cujo subscribes to that theory.

Everyone that dies in this film, with the exception of maybe one, does so because they are not very likable people to begin with. They are all tainted and when Cujo gets a hold of them, we are almost glad that he wants their blood. But it is the climax of the film that is the most intriguing. Because here we have a woman who has gotten rid of her sin. But she now has to face the music not for what she is doing, but for what she has done. And if you read the book, you will see that it sticks to that theory and message much more than the film does. It is understood that Cujo has to have a happy Hollywood ending, and that is fine, but the book tells a much more clear yet paradoxically convoluted tale of a boy, his dog, and how sin is never really forgiven.

What is also great about Cujo is how it shows the dog coming unravelled. We see the transformation from lovable suck of a family dog, to vicious killing machine that has an insatiable need for blood. We see his nose get more wet, we see how certain noises bother him more and we see how much saliva this dog has stored up in his nasty mouth.

Cujo is a good movie. It is scary, especially the last half hour and it actually has a point. It also does a fairly good job of bringing King's vision to life. It is not easy to do that, after all King has a very vivid imagination. But Cujo comes close. Very close

This movie traumatized me when I was younger

[Valkonian · 7/10 · 24 June 2020]

I definitely should not have seen this when I was younger. This is a horror movie in the sense it could somewhat really happen. Those movies are almost the scariest. The pacing is great as is the acting and Cujo will terrify you.

gave up at the 30 minute mark-literally nothing happened

[BigDaddy4000 · 1/10 · 31 March 2021]

This was by far the slowest movie i have ever watched, by the time i had turned it off the film had accomplished NOTHING, the first half hour of this horror film is dedicated entirely to watching the mundane lives if this 80s american family, so i gave up at that point. I actually thought this was going to be one of those movies that get straight into the plot when they showed the dog get rabies in the opening scene before the opening credits even finished, but everything after that happened at a snails pace. It literally felt like i was watching a laid back slice of life show instead of a horror.

Yeah i wouldnt recommend watching this movie, unless if youre the most patient person in the world i guess. Otherwise, id say avoid this.

A pretty decent version of Stephen King's novel

[FrankBooth_DeLarge · 7/10 · 31 January 2005]

Stephen King writes some of the best stories we have today. The books of his have an effect that can only be done through writing, and not by filming. That is the reason that his movies aren't as good as the books. The novel Cujo is one of the most gut wrenching and disturbing novels I've ever read. The movie isn't terrifying, but there is one exceptionally scary moment, and there is a lot of suspense.

The story is realistic and is absent of any of the supernatural elements that you would expect in a King movie. The story is about a Saint Bernard who becomes Rabid in a rural Maine town. That is the basis of the story, but it also focuses on two families, one is from the rural town, and the others are from the city and were looking for a great life in the country side. Both of these families have marriage problems, and both of the husbands have job problems. A course of events takes place in the first 45 minutes that has nothing to do with horror, but more so about the characters and the slow progression of rabies that Cujo has. Eventually, a moment strikes and horror is what takes place throughout the last 45 minutes of the movie.

(spoiler) The problem with this movie is that it ruins the book. The book has somewhat of a message that was told through a heart breaking ending that many couldn't stand, but the movie ruins the ending. Otherwise, it's a pretty decent horror movie, but it's nothing like The Shining.

"There's no such thing as real monsters".

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 27 June 2016]

As a Stephen King adaptation, this movie's horror doesn't rely on evil demons, wicked clowns or fairy dust - it's something that could actually happen, and that's what's so powerful about it. I recall reading the novel many years ago and the film managed to stay relatively close to the narrative as far as I can tell since it's been so long.

With the backdrop of young Tad Trenton's (Danny Pintauro) fear of going to sleep at night because of the monster in his closet or under the bed, his nightmare is realized when the family car stalls out in a back-woods mechanic's repair yard, abandoned by the owner and his family for extracurricular activities of their own.

What follows is a harrowing ordeal that tests the limits of one woman's (Dee Wallace) endurance to keep her young son and herself safe from annihilation. The terror doesn't let up after 'Cujo' makes his first Jaws-like appearance until Donna Trenton takes her broken bat swing in the top of the ninth with no survivors left on base. Even then, there's one final surprise left before Cujo finally goes down for the count.

I'd have to say that the make-up folks working on the assortment of St. Bernard's used in the filming did a stand-out job. As the animal became more and more vicious, the caked on blood and gore turned Cujo into one hideous beast. When he rammed the Trenton's car with his head, it's a wonder he didn't knock himself out, one of the more brutal occurrences in this tale of a rabid dog on a rampage.

Cujo will take a bite out of you! It's a pretty scary film.

[ironhorse_iv · 6/10 · 20 November 2014]

I don't know, what some critics were thinking when saying Cujo is not as menacing or frightening as other film adaptations of author Stephen King's popular stories. It's pretty damn scary! It's a better film than films like 1983's Christine & 1986's Maximum Overdrive, combined. Director Lewis Teague did unleashed a semi good horror movie into the screen and it's a bit overlooked. It had some bite with its bark. I remember seeing this film when I was a kid, and being very afraid of the huge St. Bernard. It was like if the dog, Beethoven got rabid. It's a scary thought of a family pet turning against the owners. Unlike the other horrors novels, that go deep into the supernatural and fantasy genre. This film, portrays something that could honestly happen. Based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, the movie tells the story of a mother, Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace) whom wants to get her car fixed, only to find herself with her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro) trapped in a car, when the neighborhood friendly family dog, Cujo becomes crazed and started killing people after being bitten by a rabid bat. I think, some people give this movie a bad rating, due to that reason, that it's feeding into the hype that certain dog breeds are dangerous. Yes, it's a bit prejudice and ignorance to think of all St. Bernard are evil, but to claim that the movie is too far fetch to be taken serious is an understatement. There has numeral cases of dogs turning against their owners. Yes, abuse, hunger and poor breeding play most of the factors to those accidents happening, but ruthless behaviors coming from normal well-kept dogs, do happen as well. Dogs do bite and dogs could kill you if they wanted to. They are indeed animals, no matter how tame they can seem. You do have to suspense disbelief, somewhat because the movie makes Cujo look something out like a monster. It's like 1993's Sandlot, in the humorous ways, they make Cujo look more than a normal dog through means like puppetry, forced perspective and a guy in dog costume. Still, some shots were pretty good, like the JAWS like animal point of view shots and how they show that loud sounds hurt Cujo. The movie does show how rabies does in fact lead to behavior changes in animals, but a rabid dog would either be hyperactive or lethargic, not super-crazed. This is a lethal disease that would cause the dog to be weaker and weaker, by the time, the Trenton family comes into play. A rabid dog is more likely to attack humans when prone, but it's normally it is too weak to be, even that vicious. It wouldn't have the strength to kill multiple people. Most rabid dogs would not be a killer like Cujo. Still, there's always going to be a slim chance that your dog will turn on you. But the odds of this are so astronomical that to be honest, I would not worry about it. It rarely happen. This movie shouldn't stop people, from buying St. Bernard. Most of them, are truly friendly. It was genuine problem in the making of the film because they simply could not get the St. Bernard to act aggressively. They had to replace him with a cunningly disguised Rottweiler for several crucial scenes, and tape his tail to his leg so he didn't wag it constantly. Large breed dogs like St. Bernard perfectly stable if purchased from a reputable breeder or pound. As long as you meet the requirements of taking care of the breed, this movie shouldn't stop you from buying dogs like that. One thing that I love about the film, is the sense of Man Vs Nature. Thank God, Stephen King didn't add the supernatural into it. The original novel was supposed to be a sequel of sorts following Stephen King 1983's The Dead Zone, in which a previous dead serial killer character, kind of bogeyman, supposedly haunted Tad and possessed Cujo to kill him. I just glad, it never came about, in the film version. I do like how Cujo stakes his prey, as if a Lion or a wolf, waiting for the right moment to attack. You really get the race against time, as conditions inside the car, become more and more unbearable, as heatstroke and dehydration, starts to kick in. The only thing, I kinda hate about the film is how annoying, the child is. The way, he's scream is ear-bleeding. It's super loud. It's doesn't help that the kid is nearly ten year old, yet, he acts like a useless toddler. How lame! He could do more, to help his mother. He was just a burden to watch. He's way too sensitive. I just wish, the movie had the same ending for the kid as the novel. One thing, I didn't like is the sub-plot that the novel had, about Donna cheating on her husband. It never added much to the story. The movie also brings it in, to help push the story, on why the police couldn't find, Donna and the kids, but the movie doesn't give us a conclusion on what happen to the Trenton's marriage. It ends with a cliffhanger note. The same, goes with the Camber family. They go away, for plot reasons, so Donna and the kids can be stuck with the dog, most of the film, but still, you would have thought, they would be used for the big climax, but no, they don't return. The movie would have, more depth, if Bret (Billy Jayne) was the one that had to take his own dog down. It would have been a great Old Yeller type of an ending. Sadly, it never came. Overall: It's a dog eat dog world out there and Cujo indeed deserve another look. Like me, you're be really surprise, how good, it was.

Pretty good, especially for a creature-horror movie

[grantss · 6/10 · 24 April 2015]

Pretty good, especially for a creature-horror movie.

Horror movies, incl creature-horrors, are dime-a-dozen and are easily the least original and worst genre of movies. However, Cujo is fairly good.

Based on a Stephen King novel, the big plus to Cujo is that it is believable. No supernatural, bump-in-the-night crap. This could actually happen.

Add in the fact that it doesn't overstay it's welcome - it's 89 minutes long - and moves along fairly well, and it is an entertaining movie. Performances are okay too.

Hardly Citizen Kane, but it'll do.

Decent King Adaptation

[Michael_Elliott · 3 October 2012]

Cujo (1983)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

A normally friendly St. Bernard named Cujo gets rabies and goes on a killing spree. Eventually a mother (Dee Wallace) and her young son (Danny Pintauro) crosses paths with the monster and soon they're trapped in their car unable to go anywhere. CUJO isn't a complete success but there are enough effective moments to make it worth sitting through. I'm not familiar with the Stephen King story so I can't comment on how close this movie follows it but I think there are a few problems here. One problem is that we're given a pretty worthless subplot involving the wife having an affair on her husband (Christopher Stone). I'm not sure if this played a bigger part in the book but here it just basically adds minutes to the running time and in the end it really adds up to nothing. Another problem I have with the film is that it's not nearly as intense as it should have been. In order for a film like this to succeed I think it needs to keep the viewer in constant terror as soon as everything starts to happen. That doesn't happen here, although there is one attack sequence inside the car that is quite chilling. Finally, the biggest problem with the picture is that it's simply way too predictable. With that said, Dee Wallace is extremely good in her role as the mother who is forced to fight this creature to try and save her son. Pintauro is also very good in his role as the child and it's fun seeing Stone, although his role isn't that well written. As I said, there's one attack scene inside the car that is quite thrilling but the rest of them are only mildly entertaining. The final showdown does manage to be quite exciting, although by this point you're ready for anyone to win just as long as the movie comes to an end.

Watchable and nothing more than that...

[Bored_Dragon · 4/10 · 19 February 2017]

I didn't read the original story by King, so I cannot judge how faithful adaptation is, but the movie alone is barely watchable. It is not complete crap, but it is not much above it either. Technically this movie is mediocre. Level of entertainment... well, I had to force myself to stick to it till the end. But I must admit that it has some really scary parts. Most of it is boring and redundant, but few scenes really made me shiver. If they could make the whole thing at least half that intense it could have been really good horror/drama. But this way it does not deserve more than 4, being an average of 8 for scary parts and 2 for every other aspect of the movie.

Warning: Spoilers

Specific objections to the story:

• First half an hour show us family relations in the house of the victims and wife's love affair that has no influence on the main course of the story. It is like they put it in the film only to pull on enough material for 90 minutes. That part is painfully boring.
• Wife and kid are stuck in the car for 48 hours and nobody noticed they're missing. Is it possible/probable that they have no family, friends, neighbors or anyone else they have everyday communication with and who would notice they're missing...
• They are in the courtyard of the local mechanic, just 7 miles from their home. Is it possible/probable that no one knows where they're gone, no one stopped by to fix their car or came across for any other reason for whole two days and nights...
• Cop that finally starts searching for them soon comes across their car all battered and covered in blood. Logical sequence of procedures would be to park police car close to victim's, use the police radio to call backup and tell what he saw, then pull out his gun and carefully get out of the car and go to take a look into the victim's car. In that case, the victim would tell him what is happening and he would have two options. Either to carefully look for the beast and kill it or to get victims into the police car and get a hell out of there, while calling the competent service to solve the issue. Instead, he parks far away from the bloody car, does not call for backup or at least to say where he is and what he found, gets out of the car unarmed and nonchalantly strolls across the yard. Of course, beast lurks and grabs him by surprise. And when he finally decides to use his gun, he is too freaked and clumsy so he drops his gun on the ground and he gets killed. Cops may be believed to be stupid, but this kind of carelessness is in contrary with basic instincts of self-preservation.
• At the end, when the mother finally succeeds to defend her child by sticking broken baseball bat into the beast, she takes the gun from the ground and gets into the house without even checking if the beast is really dead. Those bolder would probably approach the beast to check if it's still alive, but everyone would at least empty the whole magazine into it, just in case. She did neither and, of course, she gets attacked from behind once again. Completely retarded.

There is more of smaller illogicalities and nonsense, but what I listed above should be enough. For moments scary, but mostly dull and poorly told life drama. Without those few emotionally strong moments this movie would barely deserve 2/10.

4/10

It's ok, nothing spectacular.

[LebowskiT1000 · 7/10 · 15 October 2002]

I didn't really know what to expect from this film, although I did know that the book was written by Stephen King, so that gave me some sort of basis. To my surprise, I expected the film to much more supernatural, but there really wasn't anything supernatural about it.

The camera-work in the film was pretty good. There were a few scenes that I wasn't terribly fond of, like when the kid runs from the light switch to his bed. I thought that was un-needed, and just too dramatic for such a non-dramatic scene. Or when Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace) and Tad Trenton (Danny Pintauro) are stuck in the car and the camera goes in circles back and forth between them. Just stupid!!! But everything else was done quite well. The dog, Cujo, looked excellent throughout the film, although, I think they went a little overboard at times with the goo on his face.

The actors all did a fine job, but there really isn't much to talk about. The Kid (Danny Pintauro) did start to annoy me a bit much at times, but that's ok, he's a kid.

Overall, the story was pretty interesting, and a bit better than I expected, but I still wouldn't recommend going out of your way to see this. Unless of course, you are a big fan of Stephen King (or the actors/director). On the upside though, the film is very short, so even if you don't like it, you won't be wasting a whole lot of time. Well, if you do end up seeing the film, I hope you enjoy it. Thanks for reading,

-Chris

The scariest thing about this movie was the BOX!!

[FiendishDramaturgy · 1/10 · 27 October 2003]

Cujo is a Saint Bernard who is bitten by a rabid bat and contracts rabies himself.

Tad Trenton and his mom, Donna, are having car problems, and in the face of Dad walking out on them, the poor things have to take the car to the mechanic's, all by themselves. (If Mom hadn't been doing the handy man, that wouldn't have happened, but I digress.) The car stalls in the mechanic's front yard, the mechanic's gone, and there's no one there to greet them but Cujo.

I'm sorry, but a rabid dog, even under the conditions of isolation such as this movie presents, just...isn't scary. All the screaming that goes on is basically just the typical female victim in the typical female victim role in most poorly done movies. "Help! Help! I'm all by myself and I'm very very scared!" Ridiculous. Take a dog bite and kill the thing. The shots are painful, but you don't take the chance of your kid slipping into a COMA while you're doing it.

I found this movie rather pointless, and I, an avid Stephen King fan, found the book to be a bit worse.

On a bright note, I found Danny Pintauro's portrayal to be very convincing and realistic. No wonder he did so well as Jonathan on "Who's the Boss." Too bad he didn't have a story line to work with here. With his talent, this could have been a great movie.

It rates a 1/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Classic Stephen King!

[davispittman · 8/10 · 7 July 2016]

Cujo is just a great horror film, plain and simple, it just is. Now I haven't seen all of Stephen King's work, although I have seen his classics like misery and the Shining. I actually thought that cujo was better than the shining, but not quite as good as something like misery. The story is just very well told through film, I cannot recommend the book because I have not read it, but I can recommend this movie for horror or thriller lovers. Also the acting is done really well especially by Dee Wallace! Dee really pulled off a great performance here. And she delivers one of the best lines I've ever heard in a film: f**k you dog! Cujo definitely knows what will scare and it uses that. Also I think the run time and the pacing of the movie is spot on. I believe it's about an hour and 32 minutes, which is just right for this movie because really it doesn't need to be long if this movie specifically was overly long, then you would bore and lose the audience. And I think they did a good job at making the dog look borderline demonic and just downright evil. So all in all I think this was a great book to film Stephen King adaptation that I recommend to horror and thriller movie fans. 8/10 for Cujo!

Genuine horror

[Boyo-2 · 6/10 · 13 August 2001]

Very good movie that does not resort to cheap thrills to scare you...okay, maybe once, but that's allowed.

That damn dog is enough to make anyone cringe..he is rabid and p***ed about it, too, so he attacks anyone he encounters. Unfortunately for Dee Wallace and her son, that includes them, in a remote spot with a not-functioning-properly car. They are stuck in the car and there is no way out. The kid is already scared of his own shadow so this does not go over that well, and Mom is a contrite adulterer who might be feeling a little like she's paying for her sins.

There are several great shots - Pinaturo running from the lightswitch to his bed; and another in the car when they realize the true horror - the camera circles around and around and the effect is very chilling.

Recommended. 8/10.

Poor dog.

[Hongwaree_Raitao · 1/10 · 12 May 2020]

Atrocious movie. Stupid characters and an extremely annoying kid, everything is really hard to watch.