The Big Picture

Cujo
, a 1983 film adaptation of a Stephen King novel, accurately portrays a rabid dog’s slow descent into a menacing terror.

Cujo
‘s storyline, while plausible and terrifying, suffers from dated cinematography and uneven acting.
A modern remake of
Cujo
could enhance immersion through sound, cinematography, and improved visual effects.

Cujo was first published by Stephen King in 1981 and later adapted into a film of the same name in 1983 by director Lewis Teague. The premise of the film and story follows a mother and her young son whom a rabid Saint Bernard dog targets as they are dropping off their unreliable car for repairs at a remote location. With no way to communicate their predicament and in desperate need of help, the two are stranded inside their car on an isolated farm during the heat of summer as the killer dog circles nearby.

It’s a terrifying situation and is possibly one of King’s most horrifying stories because it could actually happen in real life. In this story, no clowns are lurking in sewer drains, there are no supernatural elements like vampires or malicious spirits corrupting the mind of a ski lodge caretaker, and no reanimated pets (or loved ones) are digging themselves out of the “Sematary.” It’s just a rabid dog and the two terrified people frantically trying to escape it. The 1983 film adaptation of King’s Cujo isn’t without its merits, but, of all the classic King adaptations, this is the story most deserving of an updated remake.

Cujo Cujo, a friendly St. Bernard, contracts rabies and conducts a reign of terror on a small American town. Release Date 1983-00-00 Director Lewis Teague Cast Dee Wallace , Danny Pintauro , Daniel Hugh Kelly Runtime 93 mins Main Genre Horror

What the 1983 ‘Cujo’ Movie Got Right

The 1983 film adaptation of Cujo is true to the book’s storyline and honors the source material. It accurately demonstrates how the rabies virus slowly affects its host, with many scenes showing Cujo’s aversion to water and loud noises. In the earlier stages of infection, the dog shows moments of clarity and recognition that what he’s doing is “wrong,” such as when he growls at his 10-year-old owner, Brett Camber (Billy Jacoby), before disappearing into the surrounding woods. When writing the novel, King certainly did his research on the horrific virus and how it works, which is also mirrored by the film’s portrayal. However, that’s not the only circumstance that makes this story plausible or relatable.

The movie also effectively sets up a perfect storm of situations leading up to the main story of Cujo. Early in the film, we are introduced to 4-year-old Tad (Danny Pintauro), who is shown to have night terrors and fears “monsters” that might be lurking in his closet or under his bed, despite assurances from his parents, Donna (Dee Wallace) and Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly), that no such monsters exist. Additionally, it turns out Donna is having an affair with ex-boyfriend Steve Kemp (Christopher Stone), which is eventually discovered by her husband, Vic. On the day that Donna is supposed to take their Ford Pinto to the Cambers’ farm for repairs, Vic also has to leave for an emergency 10-day work trip. He departs without the two discussing their problems, saying he needs time alone to think about the future of their marriage. Similarly, the mechanic who owns the farm, Joe Camber (Ed Lauter), agrees to let his wife and son Brett leave to visit relatives for a week, with Brett being the only one who notice something is wrong with Cujo. All these dramatic elements contribute to the terrible predicament in which Donna and Tad (and other victims) end up finding themselves trapped.

Why ‘Cujo’ Just Doesn’t Hold Up Four Decades Later
Image via Warner Bros.

Many horror fans enjoy the specific style in which movies from the ’70s and ’80s were made. Nostalgia goes a long way when it comes to shoulder pads, outdated technology, and questionable hair and makeup choices, but it doesn’t make up for bad acting. Sure, times were different when Cujo was filmed, but the movie has since fallen into the category of “cheesy 80s horror movies that aren’t scary anymore.” This is largely due to the dated cinematography, overly dramatic musical score interjecting at odd times, and unfortunately … some poor acting. It’s a well-known fun fact for fans of the film that even the dogs who played Cujo weren’t always great at their job. Similar to how the creators of Game of Thrones had to use CGI to make the Stark family’s direwolves’ tails stop wagging during certain scenes, the various dogs (and one man in a dog suit) used to portray Cujo come across more like Beethoven than a rabid, killer canine. In one particular scene in the film, Cujo smashes through a house window because the phone is ringing. After the dog performs his “trick,” he sits there happily until you can see the dog-trainer’s hand reach up to pull the dog away from the window frame.

Additionally, the acting of the adults in the main cast fails to portray the complexities of their respective personal situations, specifically when it comes to the recently discovered affair between Donna and Steve. The backstory behind the Camber family is also left out of the movie, allowing Joe Camber’s physical abusiveness toward his wife and son to be swept under the rug, even though, in the book, it’s the main reason why his wife strategically removes herself and her son from the homestead and takes off to visit her sister. The lack of this crucial element makes Cujo’s first two kills in the movie (Joe’s lecherous drinking buddy and Joe himself) lose some of their impact.

The lack of any denouement in Cujo compounded with the lack of context surrounding the Camber family dynamics also makes the ending feel abrupt and rushed. Once Donna kills Cujo, her husband, Vic, arrives at the farmhouse to see her holding their son in her arms. Roll credits. There is zero closure concerning various storylines such as the future of Tad’s well-being, the couple’s marriage, or how the surviving members of the Camber family react to what happened. Ironically, Vic works as an advertising specialist in the film, and one of his clients has a major PR issue with their breakfast cereal right after they launched a marketing campaign with “The Professor,” who claims in the commercial: “Nope, nothing wrong here.” This is followed by a news reporter saying “Well, that’s not entirely true.” It’s certainly not true for the 1983 adaptation of Cujo either.

How Stephen King Feels About 1983’s ‘Cujo’
Image via Warner Bros.

King has never shied away from vocalizing his opinions regarding adaptations of his work, from his outright hatred of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining to his love of Frank Darabont’s The Mist. Despite the film’s less-than-stellar critical reception, King believes that Cujo is one of his better film adaptations. When asked about his favorite films based on his work in a 2022 interview with Netflix, King shared:

“The one that people don’t talk about a lot is ‘Cujo.’ And I always thought that movie didn’t get the attention it deserved. Certainly not for Dee Wallace, who should’ve got an Oscar nomination.”

Given how King believes that Cujo wasn’t given the attention it warranted, a remake — one with modernized filmmaking techniques — would give the 1981 novel a second lease on life in a time when it’s more feasible to capture the nuances of the story on screen. A major part of what makes Cujo so terrifying is that the story is simple, avoiding flashy kills or supernatural phenomena. Although King is a fan of the 1983 adaptation, likely one of the reasons many aren’t is because that horror is lost amidst a sea of subpar acting and dated cinematography — ultimately leading to a disappointing take on such a beloved, iconic King character.

How a Remake of ‘Cujo’ Could Fix Things

Films from decades past will always have a special place in the hearts of those who grew up watching them. However, remaking Cujo with modern cameras and sound equipment would drastically improve the chances of a positive audience reaction. Imagine seeing a remade version of Cujo in an IMAX theater with Dolby Digital surround sound. Skilled sound engineering would allow viewers to become more immersed in the paranoia and fear of the protagonists as they can hear the rabid dog circling the sides of the car, just out of their sight. The original score could even remain the same if it was remastered, creating an overall cleaner sound to complement the emotional and dramatic scenes.

Cinematography has also evolved drastically since Cujo was released, and it would be interesting to see how modern filming techniques would allow for more nuanced performances by the cast, especially the two main characters trapped inside the car. It can be extremely difficult to accurately portray the element of claustrophobia, something that the original film tried to do with that strange spinning shot from inside the car and only succeeded in giving viewers motion sickness. A 360-degree shot, which is often used in films to convey a feeling of isolation and fear, was successfully utilized in a scene from M. Night Shyamalan’s Devil, which focuses on a group of people who are trapped in an elevator. High-angle shots are also often used to showcase the vulnerability of a victim, which was done in the 1983 film, but drone footage would bring a high-angle shot to new heights (pun intended) and emphasize how isolated the farm is and how far the victims are from reaching help.

The time that the events of the story take place would also add to elements of nostalgia or a fresh new take on the film. For example, the original Carrie took place in the 70s, when the film was released. However, the remake, which starred Chloe Grace-Moretz as the titular character, took place around the time the movie was released in 2013. The main story remained the same, but the time switch allowed younger audiences to relate better to how Carrie was being bullied through the use of cell phones. A remake of Cujo could easily go either way. The movie could still be set in the 1980s when cell phones were not commonly owned by many people, or the movie could be set in the modern day. Including the use of cell phones in a remake could alter some moments in the story, such as how and when Vic discovers his wife’s affair with Kemp. But they wouldn’t necessarily have to affect the main story much, as the farm might not have any cellular reception or the cell phone could be damaged during the initial attack.

The utilization of CGI, puppetry, and practical effects has come a long way since 1983. A Cujo remake could blend and refine these techniques to create an even more horrifying and gruesome version of the story. There’s still value in having a real Saint Bernard performing on set, but a Cujo do-over could complement that with modern CGI and practical effects that would increase the brutality of Cujo’s attacks throughout the film. Considering the recent remakes of Stephen King’s other film adaptations, like IT, Carrie, Firestarter, and even Children of the Corn, it’s clear that there’s still interest in seeing new versions of his stories. It’s time to make Cujo scary again!

Cujo is currently available to stream in the U.S. on Max.

Watch on Max