Review of Cujo (1983) by Harry W — 11 Dec 2016

Based on the Stephen King story of the same name, Cujo sounded like an entertaining horror feature.

Even though Cujo is based on a Stephen King text, when you take away that name it only retains the premise of a generic horror film with none of his brilliance. Of course that is a safe assumption to make when considering the fact that the text has been transferred to a film medium, but it really pinpoints the distinction of a Stephen King text by revealing how the story fails to function in a format which cannot be read. While the original Cujo narrative played out as a series of vignettes in Castle Rock, Maine, it also had a much more grim sentiment than the film will ultimately allow it to have. By stripping it down to the most simplistic parts of its story, the narrative trajectory in Cujo ultimately lacks for ambition.

The story in Cujo is incredibly formulaic. A small group of one-dimensional characters in a small country town are attacked by a rabid dog. With a premise that simple, the film demands a focus on horror virtues to compensate for its narrative shortcomings. But even though the film derives itself from a writer who is known for being borderline psychotic with his violence from time to time, the film feels incredibly tame. The majority of the horror in the film is constituted by a dog halfheartedly pretending to attack a car while a one-dimensional mother and son scream and whine inside. There are occasional moments where the bangs and crashes elicit a response from audiences, but most of the time there is honestly no feeling of an impending threat in the film. I mean, the titular dog himself is an adorable St. Bernard whose appearance is altered by slight colour changes. His behaviour is playful which the director attempts to pass off as rabid with the addition of some minor sound editing. The ambition to use footage of an actual dog rather than animatronics or visual effects certainly gives the film a sense of realism, but the titular Cujo does not appear intimidating all that often. The ordeal is therefore unconvincing, and since protagonist Donna Trenton is a one-dimensional archetype there is no sense in developing any care for the character. What we're essentially left with is a film where an obviously non-threatening dog is playing with a car while a woman nobody cares about sits inside it and screams. This is the full extent of what happens in Cujo, and it stretches on for 91 overly long minutes in which there are really no thrills. There is no dramatic buildup and no impressive climax with the film ultimately remaining dramatically monotonous throughout its entirety.

Perhaps the standard for what was scary was far lower back in 1983, but the film also came out the same year as Christine (1983) which was another Stephen King adaptation. Through a greater focus on characters and atmosphere building, a film about a killer car became far more frightening than one about a rabid dog. It should really be the other way around as audiences are more likely to be attacked by an angry dog than an angry car in the real world, but Lewis Teague is ultimately too much of an amateur director to really elicit any really powerful dramatic effect out of Cujo. The entire story unfolds as a slate of blank imagery with no heart to it and little sense of actual technique in the production process, as well as the fact that the violent content is minimized so that there is little blood or gore to the film. The setting for the film is convincing enough, but rather than working to establish a sense that the characters are trapped in a location distant from anyone who might be able to help, it just makes the scale of the film seem too small to be convincing. The fact that the film centers around so few characters means that the scale is exceedingly small and the threat is even lesser. Cujo is ultimately a very forgettable film which comes without scares or originality, and if it weren't inspired by a Stephen King story then its recognition would be as minimal as it ultimately deserves. Cujo lacks the sophisticated screenplay to be a strong Stephen King adaptation, the thrilling atmosphere to function as a genuinely good horror film and even the violence or nudity that make up a 1980's guilty pleasure.

The only part of Cujo which really seems all that believable is the leading performance from Dee Wallace. Donna Trenton is a generic stock character who has nothing interesting happening in her story which means that she is as dull as the drama around her until she is under threat from the titular Cujo. But once the film gets to this point, audiences begin to understand why the actress has earned the legacy of a scream queen. Donna Trenton becomes trapped in a terrifying situation which Dee Wallace embraces the full terrror of. Without trying to reach beyond the capabilities of the character, Dee Wallace puts all her talents into capturing the heavyset fear of her character which she manages to do with no problem. By stripping away any pretense of character and simply embracing her emotional core, Dee Wallace manages to capture the archetype of her role without trying to contribute anything more or less than the role needs. She may not end up bringing the most interesting character to the film, but there is no doubt that she brings the most realistic dramatic element to Cujo with her sheer expressions of fear and motherly chemistry with Danny Pintauro. Audiences may not be convincingly scared by the attempts at horror in Cujo, but Dee Wallace has no trouble convincing us that she is.

Dee Wallace delivers a convincingly frightened leading performance, but Cujo ultimately disregards the grim sadism of its source material in favour of a generic animal attack story which stretches lifeless imagery and characters into a dull feature-length experience bereft of thrills.