MPAA Rating: R/Genre: Horror/Stars: Dee Wallace, Danny Pintauro, Daniel Hugh-Kelly, Christopher Stone, Ed Lauter, Kaiulani Lee, Billy Jacoby, Mills Watson, Jerry Hardin, Sandy Ward, Arthur Rosenberg/Runtime: 93 minutes
If there is anything that I have had the privilege of learning through the power of books (or bundles of paper with large amounts of words written on them for those of you not in the know), it’s that if you are wanting to read a specific type of literature there is definitely an author who is intricately connected to that genre more than a lot of other writers. So for example if you are wanting to read a story of romance then you might wish to check out one of the (arguably too many, but that’s just my opinion personally) novels penned by Danielle Steele. On the other hand if you are looking for a chilling mystery or a thrilling story set in the legal system of the United States then there’s always James Patterson or John Grisham respectively. Along with that, if you are in the mood for sci-fi then definitely take some time to look into the worlds vividly brought to life by the iconic Ray Bradbury or Philip K. Dick respectively. Of course, if you want to read a scary story there is (by and large) one name that immediately comes to mind and that would be none other than Stephen King and is it any wonder why dear reader? I mean here is a guy whose greatest contribution to society is finding each and every thing that humanity is afraid of and then deciding to write about it in an attempt to make you afraid of it too. As a result, if you are the kind of person who’s ok with small towns in Nebraska then don’t worry: Children of the Corn is here to set you straight. Oh and you know that person who says that they are your biggest fan? Well you better be careful because if Misery is any indication they could be a bit on the murderously loony side. Plus if you’re at that time in your life and you’re excited for prom then got to hand it to Carrie for giving you a degree of dread about attending that might not have been there before. Of course, if you are the kind of person who is an avid animal lover and think to yourself “oh good at least King hasn’t gotten to this avenue of life” then I hate to break it to you, but he certainly has. Not just with Pet Sematary (which saw a dead cat resurrected and cause all kinds of havoc), but also with the story that was adapted into a 1983 slice of cinema that I happen to be reviewing for you today. A story known simply as Cujo. Indeed this is a cinematic adaptation that, with the release of fellow Stephen King adaptations Christine and The Dead Zone the same year, might not have gotten as much notice, but the truth is it definitely deserves more attention than it got. To be sure, it’s not perfect by any means, but with the aid of fairly good work on both sides of the camera, Cujo “83” is definitely a solid little chiller that, dog lover or not, is definitely worth your time to say nothing of a worthy addition to the list of King’s silver screen adaptations.
The plot is as follows: An adaptation of the 1981 novel of the same name by Stephen King, Cujo gets its chilling narrative underway by taking us to (where else? I mean this IS a Stephen King story we’re talking about here after all) the exotic locale of Maine where we are introduced to a family by the name of the Trentons. A family that might seem like they have everything figured out in this grand and crazy phenomenon that we know as life, but the truth is that things are in a state of flux at the moment for them. This is because not only has family matriarch Donna been having a bit of an affair with an old boyfriend for reasons that are best left for the movie to reveal, but also her husband Vic has very much caught on to it. As a result, we see that there is more than just a wee bit of tension present in what has been (up to that point in time) a fairly positive and healthy marriage. Yet as troubling as these marital wrinkles are however, we see that there’s something significantly more sinister waiting in the wings for them. This is because of the last character that I think is worthy of mention in this particular saga. That being a character that takes the shape and form of a giant yet friendly St. Bernard by the name of (get this) Cujo. Now Cujo it is worth noting is not the Trentons’ dog. Rather, he is a dog owned by a mechanic that our happy-go-dysfunctional family go to see at his home in the country in the hopes that he can fix their car. With that said however, it isn’t long into our story before we see that, whilst chasing a cute little bunny into a cave, our four-legged friend has an unfortunate encounter with a bat. A bat that, in case you hadn’t put two and five together already, may or may not be afflicted with a distinct little ailment known as rabies. Yet it isn’t until the mechanic’s family has left for a week and Donna, with her and Vic’s young son Tad in tow, heads back out to his place to get her Ford Pinto (great car choice there) fixed that we see the stage is now set for a truly terrifying nightmare to be unleashed upon them. One with 4 paws, sharp claws and teeth, quite a bit of foaming around the mouth, and a rabies-induced rage that is nothing short of homicidal/blood-thirsty in the worst way possible. Now what might have started out as man’s best friend is now about to present this woman and her son with the most horrific challenge of their lives. As for whether or not they are able to conquer that challenge to say nothing of come together with Vic and be a family again or if instead they become the human embodiment of rabid puppy chow that is something I will let you discover for yourself….
Now right off the rabid bat, it is worth noting that the work done behind the camera on this particular slice of spooky cinema, whilst not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, isn’t all that bad either. To be sure, the biggest issue that I have is in regards to this slice of cinema’s script as penned by Don Carlos Dunaway and Barbara Turner (or Lauren Currier as she’s credited here). Yes, the film is for all intents and purposes a faithful adaptation of its source material, but the fact is that there are just too many subplots in this that don’t really go anywhere. As a result, there is sort of an aimless quality to the first half of this film before it finally settles into an appropriately chilling groove around the 45-minute mark or so. With that said, perhaps the one thing that the writing duo does deserve props for pulling off quite well here would have to be the changes they made to the ending of the story. Indeed, without going into spoilers, I can definitely say that the changes they make definitely give this tale a much more poignant conclusion than the one in the book. With that said, the rest of the work done behind the camera definitely helps make up for the issues with the script. This starts with the work engaged in by the cinematography as headed by one Jan de Bont. Indeed de Bont does a masterful job here of not only bringing an overwhelming vibe of tension and unease to the film overall, but also an almost suffocating degree of claustrophobia as well. As a result, not only are you left on the edge of your seat watching our heroine and her son be trapped in their car by this rabid hound and struggle to find a way out of this situation, but you also are left feeling like you are right there with them desperate to get out of this perilous predicament. I also think major props are due to the work done by this slice of cinema’s special effects and visual effects teams. Not only for their skill in utilizing certain effects for thrilling moments like Cujo using his head as an battering ram of sorts into the car window, but also for the wonderful (although slightly icky if I’m being honest) job they did at really portraying the rabies-induced behaviors and degradation (blood, foaming at the mouth, and all) of the titular canine in a way that doesn’t feel like it was merely conjured up for a movie-type fantasy, but is rooted instead in stone-cold reality. As a result, not only do you actually feel sorry for the dog to a degree as you see him (for all intents and purposes) rotting away, but you also feel like this is a scenario that could legitimately happen to someone thus making the film even more chilling than it already is. Lastly, I would be amiss if I didn’t take some time to praise the work done on this film’s musical accompaniment by noted composer Charles Bernstein (who you might know for his work on the first Elm Street film). Indeed not only is Bernstein’s score here brilliantly in synch with the rest of the film, but it also increases the terror and unease felt by both the cast of characters and movie goer in a way that feels wonderfully organic rather than artificially induced. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in capable work at the helm by Lewis Teague (who also directed one of my favorite creature features in the form of 1980’s Alligator) and solid work from the editing department as led by Neil Travis among others it’s clear that this slice of cinema might have some hiccups here and there, but overall there is definitely more that works here than doesn’t.
Of course, the other component that can either aid or detract from a film working to the best of its respective ability undoubtedly comes in the form of the work done by the performances given by the cast of players assembled in front of the camera. In that regard, it should be noted that whilst the cast in front of the camera for this particular cinematic outing don’t have a lot in the way of material to work with they all still manage to give fairly good turns all things considered. Without question, perhaps the standout performance here (besides that of the no less than 5 dogs who brought the titular canine to life) would have to come from horror icon Dee Wallace (The Howling and Critters among others) in the role of Donna Trenton. Indeed Wallace has long been an actress who I have admired as a talent and here she does a terrific job at playing this woman who, despite having a loving husband and son, has clearly become frustrated and perhaps even a bit indifferent with her life and the people in it and, as a result, has made a mistake that could quite potentially cost her all that she holds dear in this world. Yet it is only through being held (for all intents and purposes) under siege by this rabid and vicious canine in her broken-down car that we see her actually becoming invested in not only her relationship with her son (to say nothing of her husband), but also in life again in general as well. Suffice it to say that it is a very riveting performance and through a mixture made up of equal parts heartache, sympathetic, determination, drive, and the eventual emergence of an iron-clad will, it is one that Wallace is able to bring to life beautifully. Working perfectly alongside the performance given by Wallace is the one provided by Danny Pintauro as Tad Trenton. Indeed Pintauro might not have had the big screen career that some other child actors of the 80s were blessed with, but even so there is no denying that Pintauro does a wonderful job at not so much playing a character here and more so like an actual kid stuck in a car with his mom while outside Clifford the Bloody Rabid Dog is terrorizing the heck out of them. A creative choice which really does a wonderful job of really helping to convey the terror and emotion on display by both Pintauro and Wallace in an honest and realistic manner. Lastly, I would definitely be amiss if I didn’t take some time to talk about the work done here by iconic character actor Ed Lauter as Joe Camber. No it’s not the biggest part in the movie, but even so Lauter does a terrific job at playing this sleazy, scummy, and fairly scruffy individual in such an enjoyably despicable way that you can’t wait to see him get his comeuppance. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in good yet more low-key efforts from such talents as Daniel Hugh-Kelly as Trenton family patriarch Vic, Christopher Stone who is lecherously good yet underwritten as Donna’s more than slightly unhinged paramour on the side Steve Kemp (a tad bit ironic seeing as Stone and Wallace actually were married when this movie was made), Kaiulani Lee, Billy Jacoby, Mills Watson, Sandy Ward, and Jerry Hardin among others it’s clear that the performances might not be the best in the world, but that’s less because of the work done by the performers themselves and more because they don’t have that much characterization to work with in the first place.
All in all and at the end of the day is Cujo a perfect doggone slice of cinema by any stretch of the imagination? Sadly no, but that’s ok because not every dog gets their day right away. With that in mind, does that make this the worst thing to happen to a dog in the history of cinema since the seemingly infinite number of sequels to Air Bud, the time Chevy Chase became Benji in Oh Heavenly Dog (real thing by the way), the 2020 take on Call of the Wild and their choice to go the computer animation route with their canine protagonist, or a group of dumb young criminals killed one that belonged to a certain assassin by the name of John Wick? Thankfully, (especially when it comes to the aforementioned infinite number of Air Bud sequels) I can say that is definitely not the case though in the case of the young criminals who killed John Wick’s dog I would love to see a video where they try to kill Cujo. Something tells me that might not end all that well….for them. All sarcastic observations and fanboy wishes (as twisted as they may be) aside dear reader, I must admit that Cujo definitely bolds a very intriguing spot in my horror film-loving heart. No the cast of characters that we are treated to in this aren’t exactly written as well as they could have been and yes it does take a fair bit of the movie before we finally get to what we are all waiting (or at least I think we’re all waiting) to see. With that in mind though, the cast of performers in front of the camera certainly do try to bring their best here despite the lack of characterization on the page, the visual effects are (especially in regard to the titular animal’s deteriorating state as the film goes on) gritty and realistic, the work at the helm is fairly solid, the attack sequences themselves are sure to leave you on the edge of your seat, and the rest of the work done behind the camera is most assuredly capable even whilst also being neither game-changing or anything to write home about in any significant manner. Suffice it to say that if you want a genuinely heartwarming story about the relationship that can form between a boy and his dog to say nothing of one that will have you needing at least 3 boxes of tissues before the film is over then please go check out Old Yeller. On the other hand, if you want a good (yet not great) 93-minute thrill ride that also serves as a fantastic 80s PSA for why you should always keep an eye on your dog’s health and wellbeing (especially if you live in Maine) then definitely give this slice of cinema a try. Sure you could do better, but you could also do a howling lot worse as well. Make of that what thou will. On a scale of 1-5 I give Cujo “83” a solid 3 out of 5.
