Cujo

Name: Cujo
Genre: Thriller, Horror
Released: August 12, 1983
Duration: 93 min
Rating: 57
Cast: Daniel Hugh Kelly, Dee Wallace

1983

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 8 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 37 Ratings

See All

6.8

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.8	Your Score
6.8	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 37 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Cujo

Now Playing: Cujo

Movie Details & Credits

Warner Bros. | Release Date: August 12, 1983 | R

Starring: Daniel Hugh Kelly, Dee Wallace

Summary: Cujo, a regular St. Bernard, contracts rabies and conducts a reign of terror on a small American town.

Director: Lewis Teague

Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

Rating: R

Runtime: 93 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

Jay Scott

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]

Janet Maslin

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. Read full review

Bill Cosford

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]

Time Out London Staff (Not Credited)

For all its ingenuity, Cujo does lose an awful lot of ground from the fact that rabid St Bernards tend to evoke pity rather than terror. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

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. Read full review

Gary Arnold

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. Read full review

Staff (Not Credited)

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. Read full review

SEE ALL 8 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Hugi09

Aug 3, 2019

This movie is perfect !!!! « TERRIFING » !!!!! Exellent ! Is terrifing as hell !!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Habibiehakim

Nov 23, 2021

It's a terrific movie, i absolutely love it, it's terrifying, and it's scary, Cujo also fills with an unexpectedly fantastic performance, all the cast especially Dee Wallace (Donna), Danny Pintauro (Tad), and Daniel Hugh Carrie (Vic) are so good, i even want the whole affair drama story moreIt's a terrific movie, i absolutely love it, it's terrifying, and it's scary, Cujo also fills with an unexpectedly fantastic performance, all the cast especially Dee Wallace (Donna), Danny Pintauro (Tad), and Daniel Hugh Carrie (Vic) are so good, i even want the whole affair drama story more and even become a movie (with the same cast of course), Cujo is an intense 93 minutes movie based on Stephen King's novel that really worth to watch, it's also just become one of my favorite King's movie adaptation.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

TheQuietGamer

Feb 8, 2019

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 theI 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… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Computey18

Dec 26, 2022

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

LamontRaymond

Jun 13, 2017

I was legitimately scared by this movie - and what made it for me was the mom - she's terrific in every role she plays. Amazing as the protector with this canine menace on the prowl.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Horrorseeker

Aug 29, 2019

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

FilipeNeto

Oct 23, 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 wellThis 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 7 REVIEWS