FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

marieltrokan Irrespective of the novel - although the novel itself could be identical to the movie - the 1983 adaptation Cujo is the message that openness needs to be condemned. Honesty is a type of pain and suffering. In the most bizarre and unique turn of events, Cujo is a film that's about fairness being the abusive and censorship being the moral factor. A known enemy is the definition of fairness, and the definition of sanity, whilst it's a known ally that's the actual enemy. The equivalent of a known enemy is an unknown ally: the solution, according to the 1983 film Cujo, is that actual fairness is the result of having an ally because of no awareness - having no awareness because of an ally. In general, an ally is a force that's supportive. The lack of awareness makes sense, when it comes to sanity and to establishing fairness, but, the exactness of Cujo is that it's the lack of awareness that makes it possible to have an ally. The lack of force creates support.A force is a concentration. A concentration is always after an origin. The failure to be after an origin creates a support that isn't an oppression. The failure to be after an origin is the same as the success of being before an origin - ergo, the objective of creating an ally which isn't exploitative in any way is predicated on having the ability to precede any origin. An origin is always time, and so, the ensuing logic would have to be that it's only outside of time that pure support is possible. Origin is the ability to precede. Therefore success is when reality overcomes the ability to precede - reality has to defeat the ability to happen before something.Happening before something is the enemy. Happening after something is the ally. The moral reality, is when it's only possible to exist after something else. Being after something is an implied inferiority - the moral reality is when it's only possible to be an implied inferiority. The inferiority is an illusion, as is the implication. The superiority is real, however, it's a superiority that's literally incapable of promoting itself - it's a type of greatness that literally cannot brag about its own power.In Cujo (1983), the concept of being superior is the definition of being a weakness that can take pride in the fact that it's supposed to be a weakness, and therefore understand the idea that literal greatness is a confirmed accident

Samuel-Shovel After viewing this movie, I came to the IMDb page and was completely shocked to see this rated so low! Unlike a lot of horror movies from this generation, Cujo still stands up!Cujo is a slow burner, but once it gets going, it doesn't stop. Teague directs this movie beautifully: it's gritty, in your face, and absolutely relentless. The scenes, backed by a perfectly-fitted score, are extremely intense. Wallace & Pintauro give fantastic performances. Despite the static setting, you never feel bored when viewing their scenes in the second half of this film.While some of the metaphoric meaning of the book may have been lost when Cujo was transferred to the big screen, this movie is still an underrated horror flick that is definitely worth a watch.

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.

talisencrw This was solid and unexpectedly fulfilling--perhaps because I'm a cat enthusiast and am neutral towards dogs to begin with. My 13-year-old son and I enjoyed it very much. I haven't read the book yet, so it's unnecessary for enjoyment of the movie IMHO. Worth both a purchase and rewatching for genre aficionados. So far, I'm neither much of a fan of Teague (I had only previously watched 'The Jewel of the Nile', and it was decent) nor of Stephen King (he's written some great works for horror, but he's written a lot of dreck and is criminally overrated), but I was really pleasantly surprised by it--and even though it was made in the 80's, it's neither cheesy nor dated; it still holds up very well IMHO.