Cujo

Is it possible for a horror movie to be too good? If it is, then Cujo is it: this is one of the few films on record where the combination of low shock and high style results in an experience that borders on the unbearably intense. The movie is spectacularly well-made, but it's nearly unwatchable. [29 Aug 1983]

As directed by Lewis Teague, Cujo is by no means a horror classic, but it's suspenseful and scary. The performances are simple and effective, particularly Miss Wallace's. And Danny Pintauro does a good job as the frightened child.

Cujo is one of those nightmares that does not require even the suspension of disbelief. Anyone who can accept that there are dogs, people and cars that don't work can be scared silly by this movie. And, of course, the caveat: Anyone who takes a young child to Cujo needs to have his head examined. [15 Aug 1983, p.C6]

To be blunt, because there was just barely enough material in the source text to pad out the film, the filmmakers also used a lot of the stuff that worked in novel form but came off as stultifying on the screen.

CUJO suffers from universally unsympathetic characters, and the dog is just not scary enough to maintain any interest. Significantly, the picture also lacks the sly humor that made ALLIGATOR so appealing.

Although the material is conventionally manipulated to provoke terror by exploiting Cujo as a mad dog--a four-footed Jaws as a shameless matter of fact--moviegoers are likely to feel too appalled at the way a sick animal is systematically neglected.

Although well-made, this screen adaptation of Stephen King's Cujo emerges as a dull, uneventful entry in the horror genre. Novel about a mad dog on the rampage occupies a low place in the King canon, which is understandable if the film's stupefying predictability is an accurate reflection of the book.

The First Stephen King Movie Adaptation that I ever saw, and one of my favorites. It makes you feel bad for Cujo.

I consider Cujo the novel to be one of the lesser Stephen King works and am overall just not much of a fan of it. Cujo the movie I'm quite fond off however. It trims away so much of the book's fat. Excising all the pointless subplots and superfluous padding in order to focus solely on the domestic drama and rabies-induced terror. It's a leaner, meaner, and all around better way to experience the story as a result. Improvements were even made to the ending. The characters are a little underdeveloped though. We never really get to learn who they are so it's impossible to legitimately care about them. This hurts the main plot thread involving the infidelity of Dee Wallace's character. Given that there's no exploration of why she would cheat on her husband, it and everything involving her lover Steve Kemp feels like it should have been left on the cutting room floor. As for Cujo's owners, the things going on in the Camber's household are only vaguely hinted at and will likely confuse those unfamiliar with the source material as a result. All in all, none of this is really a big deal though. This is a Stephen King flick so we're all just here for the action anyways. In that department this is easily one of the author's most effective adaptations. It's the only movie I've ever seen that even comes close to capturing the same kind of tension that can be found in Jaws. It does get a little repetitive at a certain point watching Cujo repeatedly assault a broken down car with the hopes of mutilating the protagonists inside, but it doesn't take too long for the film to switch gears and return you to that edge-of-your-seat anticipation with excursions outside of the vehicle. The St. Bernard himself is a terrifying beast whose gradual degradation is excellently telegraphed by an ever-increasing coat of muck and grime. The actual plot may be a little weak and underwritten, but the situation at the core of it all is intense. A naturalistic horror film that makes "man's best friend" more terrifying than any ghost, ghoul, or monster. Thanks to a noticeable axing of so much of the source material's more unnecessary story beats, it's also one of those rare movies that's better than the book it's based on. 8.5/10

A film with that only people scared of dogs should be afraid of the terror scenes look real more real then today's movie standards

This really was a poor quality horror film, especially for a Stephen King movie. Everything about it was just plain disappointing. The effects were just the worst of the eighties where you see nothing as it happens off-camera and then you see that person lying down with some fake blood over them. That is the most imaginative that it gets. It really is bad. There were also so many holes in the plot and errors in the filmmaking. This is not scary at any point. If you really use your imagination then you just about feel scared for the characters. That is too much hard work though to make this rubbish palatable. Unless you are afraid of dogs then maybe you will be able to relate to the fear.

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.