Reviews & Ratings for
Cujo More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

115 reviews in total

---

34 out of 46 people found the following review useful:
A film that tells you that your demons will come back to haunt you., 16 July 1999

Author: Dan Grant (dan.grant@bell.ca) from Toronto, Ontario

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

---

24 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Realistic horror, 23 February 2006

Author: Tikkin from United Kingdom

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.

---

27 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Suspenseful and Underrated, more than just 'When Animals Attack: The Movie', 13 December 2000

Author: †HÈ Ñ宮‡Ør from Sydney, Australia

Cujo is a movie that will scare the hell out of dog owners, to say the least. It's very frightening and very underrated, and for most of the movie, there is no sign that it is a horror movie. However, Cujo is very frightening, mainly because these kind of things do happen, a lot of people (kids in particular) are bitten by dogs every day.

The leading lady of 80's horror movies, Dee Wallace Stone, plays a woman who is trapped in her car with her 5 year old son, as a rabid St. Bernard terrorises them.

The tension in Cujo takes a long time to build up, but when it starts, it never lets up. Under no circumstances should young kids watch this movie, they'll be wetting their beds for weeks. 7.5/10.

---

15 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
It might have you foaming at the mouth?, 14 March 2006

Author: lost-in-limbo from the Mad Hatter's tea party.

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.

---

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
A horror film that grabs and won't let go!, 26 July 2006

Author: AngryChair from Brentwood, USA

Stephen King-based thriller is a sweat-inducing shocker that ranks among the most intense King adaptations.

Woman and child are trapped inside their stalled car by a huge, rabid dog.

Cujo remains one of the more memorable Stephen King novels because it's a tale of such merciless suspense and in the hands of director Lewis Teague much of that same horror transcends well into this film. This film benefits greatly from a powerful story with some well fleshed-out characters, it's much more than just another 'animal attacks' movie. Teague's direction is also very tight and helps to build an unnerving tension through out this film. The atmosphere is very heated, the look of the movie very gritty, and the danger feels all the more real! The camera work is also excellent and makes this film feel truly claustrophobic! It builds to a finale that is heart-stopping. The music score is harrowing and the filming locations are good.

Cast-wise the film is quite strong too. The great Dee Wallace delivers an emotionally powerful performance as a mother desperate to protect her child and survive herself. Young Danny Pintauro is great as Wallace's horrified child. The supporting cast is good too, as are the numerous St. Bernard's that play our vicious title character.

Cujo is a top-notch suspense film that never loses its edge. A must-see, and not just for King fans.

**** out of ****

---

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Tense and well acted King thriller is on a par with "Misery", 5 December 2005

Author: fertilecelluloid from Mountains of Madness

This didn't get the distribution or attention "Misery" got, but it's equally tense and equally well acted by Dee Wallace-Stone (as Donna Trenton).

The simple premise is that a woman becomes trapped in a car while a rabid dog, Cujo, waits to tear her apart.

As "Misery" was about confinement, so is "Cujo", and director Lewis Teague "("Educating Rita") keeps the suspense high and convinces us that Donna's situation is real. The dog is not entirely unsympathetic, either, as we are given the reasons for his mental and physical state.

The film has a refreshing, picturesque simplicity and, by virtue of its shorter form, cuts away the lengthy novel's fat and improves on the premise, getting us to the jeopardy quicker and keeping us there.

The original poster, which depicted a distant farmhouse on a hill, may not have sold tickets, but it was a stunning piece of creative understatement.

---

19 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
One of the better Stephen King adaptations, 27 October 2000

Author: jhaggardjr from Chicago, Illinois

There have been alot of movies adapted from Stephen King novels or stories. Some have been good ("Carrie", "Cat's Eye", "Misery"), some have been just so-so ("The Shining", "Firestarter"), and some have been bad ("Children of the Corn", "Maximum Overdrive"). 1983's "Cujo" ranks up there as one of the good ones. It's about a sweet St. Bernard dog that turns nasty after a bat bites the big canine. After the dog turns completely evil, he terrorizes everybody in sight. This includes a woman and her young son who drive up to the house (where Cujo lives) to have her car fixed (Cujo's master is an auto mechanic). Not one person is in sight, and when Cujo shows up, the once friendly dog traps the two in their car and then viciously tries to break in. To make matters worse, the car stalls and refuses to start. "Cujo" does have a few laughable situations and there's a little stupidity thrown in at times, but overall this is a very effective horror film that did frighten me many times. Dee Wallace Stone" ("E.T.") and Danny Pintauro (TV's "Who's the Boss?") are very good as the mother and son who's little trip to get the car fixed turns into a nightmare. "Cujo" is a little well-made horror flick worth seeing.

*** (out of four)

---

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
dog bites man --- and Pinto ---- story..., 6 April 2008

Author: mcfly-31 from anaheim, ca

What we have here is the ultimate statement on rural families that opt to live near bat caves. The result is a fairly competent Stephen King adaptation of a big, friendly pooch that is somewhat innocently turned into a bloodthirsty devil dog.

One frolicky afternoon in the sunshine, the title farm dog is pursuing a scampering bunny rabbit through the countryside. Mistakenly popping his head into what he thinks is Thumper's underground domicile, is instead infested with bats. One pierces poor Cujo's schnozz and days later, the chaos begins.

On the other side of town, more mundane things are being played out. Your average three-person family --- complete with a kid who fears his closet at bedtime --- are going through the motions. Sure, we wouldn't mind a little character development and subtext for what's to come, but it's this part of the screenplay that nearly kills the film. Completely needless subplots populate this thing like no tomorrow, involving extra-marital activities, the most average town stud of the 80s, and an asinine attempt at damage control for --- you ready? --- a cereal campaign that's made America physically ill. What any of this crap is doing in a horror film is beyond me.

But once you've slogged through that superfluous nonsense, you're permitted a decent little thriller. We observe a mother and her young son damned by a 70s eyesore Pinto which malfunctions at exactly the wrong time. What neighborhood farm does is crap out at? You guessed it. The residence of the now bloodsoaked, dirtied Cujo.

Director Teague ought to be commended for keeping the action so tense in what ends up being (basically) a one location film. A supremely trained movie dog (or possibly *dogs*) evoke genuine fear and panic for the audience. And Teague as well creates a perfect sense of isolation for the desolate setting, which in many King novels, is a character in itself. Jan de Bont's cinematography is superbly skilled as well, most impressively involving a steadicam shot approaching the open door of the Pinto. And an excellent one rotating around Cujo as he sits on the porch of the house, the car in his sights.

Wallace and Pintauro carry the film quite well, though Pintauro's screechy whining can be a bit much at times. But that's what it makes it so convincing! You feel a legitimate observation is going of how these two people would cope with being held hostage by a serial mutt. Other characters seem to occupy the screen for the sole purpose of distancing themselves from the audience, so when they're attacked, we feel better about it. And the bearded lathario who allegedly has several mistresses at his disposal, still sees it necessary to take a knife to one of his conquests homes out of her rejection of him. Please.

The close of the film leaves an important visual off-screen (lemme just say "gunshot!"), and the final frame (especially the music) is right out of a soap opera. And I'm sorry, but as a dog lover, there were just times that I actually had sympathy for Cujo. He's not inherently evil to begin with, and most notably in the beginning, is viewed as a fluffy, friendly canine. So to see him descend into a killing machine was almost a bit depressing at times.

But if you can power through a fodder-laden start (or even utilize the fast forward button), Cujo is a passable scare-fest for a Friday night with friends.

---

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Hardcore horror., 10 December 2000

Author: gridoon

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)

---

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
It gets Cujo right, but it guts the story . . ., 3 February 2002

Author: Matthew Johnston from Ontario, Canada

I watched this after reading the book over a few days and concluding that it was one of the best, most touching (okay, not much vantage point, but it was touching), novels I had ever read. Lucky for me, I had subscribed to a Stephen King movie offer a few years ago, and had Cujo (among other worthless movies) lying around. I had never watched it, and put it in the VCR the second I finished the book.

So what did the filmmakers do with the story?

The only thing they got right -- which was done very well -- was the dog. Okay, I was freaked out, surprised, I even squirmed a few times -- and this was with the surprises of the novel fresh in my head. But a few good thrills does not a good movie make.

The subplot with Charity Camber, a powerful tug-of-war with Joe over the direction their son, Brett, is going to take, isn't even alluded to. How Joe, father and husband, can die while seemingly not effecting anyone else is beyond me. He has a kid and a wife! Isn't that important to the story? It was in the book!

Also, the subplot with Donna cheating on Vic was toned down to the point of being inconsequential. Where was the tension? In the book, I would argue that that *was* the plot, with Cujo trapping Donna and Tad in the car coming in a distant second. I was pulling for these people in the book. I was wanting it to work out. I wanted to see the note, and the sexual undertones. But, well, can't fit them into a 95 minutes movie I guess.

And don't get me started on the ending. Talk about a wimp out.

Overall, if you watch a cheap, obviously dated, thrill, this isn't the worst you're going to find. It really demeans the book though, as most of the old Stephen King movie adaptations do.

Matty J

---

---

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history