Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

virek213 The novels of Stephen King provided the basis for a number of horror films that ranged from rather good (FIRESTARTER; THE DEAD ZONE; CHRISTINE) to absolute masterworks (CARRIE; THE SHINING). One adaptation that flew under the radar screens of even the most devoted fans of the horror genre (as well as a few critics) was CUJO, based on King's 1981 novel of the same name, and released in the late summer of 1983. Part of it could be that the story itself was considered a bit thinner than what most were used to from King as a novelist. Nevertheless, in a decade that didn't see too many horror films become masterpieces (and this even applied to later King adaptations like PET SEMETARY and CHILDREN OF THE CORN), even slightly lower-caliber King from the 1980s like CUJO still outdoes even in the 21st century much of what is out there now.Dee Wallace, who portrayed the emotionally distant mother in director Steven Spielberg's 1982 sci-fi masterpiece E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL, plays more or less a similar role in CUJO, a frustrated suburban wife in a northern California town whose life has become a subject of turmoil; she has had an affair behind her husband (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) with another man (Christopher Stone); and her five year-old son (Danny Pintauro) is troubled by these issues which he is much too young to even begin to comprehend. Elsewhere in town, another young boy (Billy Jayne) has other issues coping with youth, and his only real "friend" in the world is his St. Bernard dog Cujo. Unfortunately, what nobody yet knows is that Cujo is the victim of a horrible encounter. In the film's opening, Cujo chases a rabbit into a hollowed-out, rotten log, only to get bitten on the nose by a bat infected with rabies. When Wallace and Pintauro stop off at the local garage where Cujo is kept, their car breaks down; and very soon, they are viciously attacked by the unfortunate St. Bernard. They are trapped in the broken-down car for much of the hot summer day, the target of Cujo's wrath.Lewis Teague, who directed the 1979 Dillinger-inspired THE LADY IN RED, and the 1980 cult horror film ALLIGATOR, does an effective job of conveying small-town life in this, the first of King's adaptations to be set in his fictional community of Castle Rock. The major issue that he faces in directing this film is how he depicts Cujo's attacks, which in the novel were not surprisingly quite a bit more explicit, and how sympathetic one can be towards a St. Bernard who slowly but surely evolves into a vicious killer with teeth. This becomes a prime focus when it is perfectly obvious how well Wallace and Pintauro connect as mother and young son. A basic clue can be gleaned from the fact that Cujo's horrifying transformation from loving St. Bernard to irrational mauler isn't fast or easy. Another issue, though more minor, is how Teague can keep up the suspense once Wallace and Pintauro find themselves trapped in their car at the hands of Cujo. Since the attacks can't be depicted with such relentlessness, but must be spaced at intervals, as was the case in Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 horror classic THE BIRDS, the film inevitably slows down at times; and horror film fans impatient for the blood and gore to start pouring are likely to find all of this boring. But astute fans of the genre know that it's far better to do it this way.While King is often known for situations involving horror of some kind, primarily supernatural (though not really here), he also has a firm eye for characterizations; and Teague and screenwriters Dunaway and Currier take their cue from that aspect of King, while not leaving out the horror (though the attacks themselves, while plenty horrifying, aren't revoltingly graphic). The film's on-location settings in areas around Petaluma and Santa Rosa gives the Castle Rock an idyllic but also sometimes claustrophobic feel, which is enhanced and intensified once Cujo becomes a killer.In the end, CUJO, while not quite a masterpiece on the level of either CARRIE or THE SHINING, must still be counted as one of the better horror films, thanks to the emphasis on characterization and suspense, and not just on blood and gore, while providing plenty of scares. Not many horror films in the 1980s did that, and even fewer would do so in the decades to come, and on into the 21st century.

Bill Slocum A tense standoff between two carbound people and a rabid St. Bernard is the fulcrum of this well-acted, beautifully shot yet unsatisfying adaptation of a minor Stephen King novel.Donna (Dee Wallace) and her son Tad (Danny Pintuaro) are the humans trying to stave off the title character, a dog which, infected by a bat bite, has now entered shaggy Terminator status. Before we get there, though, we get some business involving Donna's problematic marriage and Tad's fear of the unknown."There's no such thing as monsters," Tad is told by his patient pa, Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly). "Only in stories." Especially Stephen King stories, unfortunately.The root of the problem for the film "Cujo" is the source material. Written by King in the throes of alcoholism, "Cujo" the novel was a largely formulaic endeavor enlivened only by King's storytelling abilities and his sneaky social commentary about commercialism run amuck in a world of lost values. It's a work of craft rather than imagination, with a downbeat ending King himself encouraged the film's producers to jettison.Unfortunately, the constraints of the film also required them to jettison the parts of "Cujo" that might have made an audience care. Vic is an advertising executive whose major breakfast cereal account is undone by too much red dye in the product, causing children to vomit red. "Nothing wrong here" is the cereal company's tag line, which in the novel becomes a motif for what happens when the unexpected invades our comfy lives.But this isn't the book, and so here you have only nods in the direction of the cereal issue and Donna's left-field affair with a hirsute handyman (Christopher Stone, Wallace's real-life husband) before moving on to the dog attacks which is the film's reason for being.Director Lewis Teague tries setting up a backstory in the limited time available to him, yet the whiffs of subplot wind up fluttering loose ends. Instead, you are left with the standoff for the latter half of the film. Much of the focus here is on the woman and her child, who cries and then suffers an asthma attack. Did Tad always have this condition, and if so, why isn't it mentioned beforehand?Teague was more focused on the dog, and on his star, Wallace, who gives a fine account of a person trying to manage under great stress. Her often-harrowing scenes with Pintuaro work surprisingly well, but seeing them cooped up in her crapped-out Ford Pinto (adding new meaning to the term "unsafe at any speed") while Cujo either bides his time or leaps at the windows whenever noise sets him off becomes an unintended ordeal in tedium.I really love the work of cinematographer Jan de Bont, who keeps us in suspense even when the screenwriters (helped by an uncredited King) provide little real action. De Bont, along with the acting, does a great deal to ground us in the reality of the moments, such as they are."Cujo" is a horror movie only in the broadest sense, though, with sudden scares in place of catharsis. Too much attention is paid to showcasing Wallace. One scene features her smashing a window with a revolver as she lets out an enormous scream, a bit rendered silly in slow motion.The movie doesn't so much end as run out of time and ideas, with a final sequence that culminates in an unrealistic attack followed by a freeze-frame shot with soaring music that, like so much of the score, feels goofy and trite. The effort at emulating John Williams' "Jaws" score is "Cujo" the movie's most glaring weakness.The book ends in a decidedly different way, and I feel strongly that the movie, for all its faults, does better here at least. But by taking an already somewhat-denuded King story and making it even slimmer in terms of human interest, "Cujo" can't help but be a let-down, a would-be satire of commercialism that winds up being too commercial itself.

oOoBarracuda I have a love-hate relationship with Stephen King adaptations. I love The Shining, Misery, and most of IT, but can't get behind The Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile. I want to love the adaptations based on his books, but as masterful as the beginnings are, the endings mostly seem to fall flat; a phenomenon not unlike Stephen King's books. The 1983 film Cujo by Lewis Teague was no different than my viewings of other King adaptations, in the way that it starts off strong, then falls off in the middle and the end. Starring Dee Wallace and Danny Pintauro Cujo tells the story about a rabid dog who turns on those around him and brings evil to the small town he lives in. In the sleepy town of Castle Rock, Maine, Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace) lives a modest unfulfilling life with her son, Tad Trenton (Danny Pintauro) and busy husband Vic Trenton (Daniel Hugh Kelly). Spending her days taking care of her son and dealing with her husband's absence Donna seems to feel as though her very existence has been hijacked by the other members of her family. Feeling as though she solely exists for others, Donna begins an affair with her husband's friend Steve Kemp (Christopher Stone). When Vic finds out about the affair, he abruptly leaves the house; busy dealing with a business emergency anyway, Donna is suddenly alone with her son. Because he had to hurry away to deal with the business emergency, Vic left his family's car needing repairs. On the way to have the repairs done, the car breaks down leaving Donna and her son Tad face to face with a rapid dog intent to kill. I never know what to expect with Stephen King films. Some are great and some are terrible. Cujo is somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. There are some good things that happen in this film. The score is brilliant, and the dog is well-done for the screen. All the bad outweighs the few good things, however. Pacing is just horrible; I typically find great enjoyment out of a film that takes place in confinement, as this film does in the car. Cujo is not a film that works well in confinement. Bad child actors can ruin a good movie, and that is certainly the case with Cujo. The more horror movies I watch, the more disappointed I am. I love the genre, but it just seems that what passes as a horror movie is always disappointing. I won't quit the quest, but Cujo certainly did not satisfy my craving for horror movies.

Red-Barracuda 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.