Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

the_prince_of_frogs The first time I watched Cujo, I expected just a horror show. Well, I think this movie is a lot more. I will admit that I think Dee Wallace is a Super Star. In Cujo Dee Wallace portrays the most powerful force in the universe = a mother protecting her offspring. She faces down the monster with only the thought to save her child. This part of the plot is powerful enough to carry a horror movie. Interwoven in the movie is another plot of a woman married and with a child who explores an extramarital relationship. And of course this "lover" turns out to be a scoundrel supreme. Christopher Stone gives an outstanding performance as the spurned lover. Dee Wallace makes this movie.

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

Smoreni Zmaj I didn't read the original story by King, so I can not judge on how faithful adaptation is, but movie alone is barely watchable. It is not complete crap, but it is not much above it either. Technically this movie is mediocre. Level of entertainment... well, I had to force myself to stick to it till the end. But I must admit that has some really scary parts. Most of it is boring and redundant, but few scenes really made me shiver. If they could make whole thing at least half that intense it could have been really good horror/drama. But this way it does not deserve more than 4, being average of 7 for scary parts and 2 for every other aspect of the movie.4/10!!! SPOILER ALERT !!! - specific objections to the story:First half an hour show us family relations in house of the victims and wife's love affair that has no influence to main course of the story. It is like they put it in film only to pull on enough material for 90 minutes movie. That part is painfully boring. - Wife and kid are stuck in a car for 48 hours and nobody noticed they're missing. Is it possible/probable that they have no family, friends, neighbors or anyone else they have everyday communication with and who would notice they're missing... - They are in courtyard of local mechanic, just 7 miles from their home. Is it possible/probable that no one knows where they're gone, no one stopped by to fix their car or came across for any other reason for whole two days and nights... - Cop that finally starts searching for them soon comes across their car all battered and covered in blood. logical sequence of procedures would be to park police car close to victims, use police radio to call backup and tell what he saw, then pull out his gun and carefully get out of the car and go to take a look into victims car. In that case victim would tell him what is happening and he would have two options. Either to carefully look for the beast and kill it or to get victims into police car and get a hell out of there while calling the competent service to solve the issue. Instead he parks far away from bloody car, does not call for backup or at least to say where he is and what he found, gets out of the car unarmed and nonchalantly strolls across the yard. Of course, beast lurks and grabs him by surprise. and when he finally decides to use his gun he is too freaked and clumsy so he drops his gun on the ground and he gets killed. Cops may be believed to be stupid, but this kind of carelessness is in contrary with basic instincts of self- preservation. - At the end, when mother finally succeeds to defend her child by sticking broken baseball bat into beast, she takes gun from the ground and gets into house without even checking if the beast is really dead. Those bolder would probably approach the beast to check if it's still alive, but everyone would at least empty whole magazine into it just in case. She did neither and of course, she gets attacked from behind once again. Completely retarded.There is more smaller illogicalities and nonsense, but what I listed above should be enough to justify my 4/10. For a moments scary, but mostly dull and poorly told life drama. Without those few emotionally strong moments this movie would barely deserve 2/10.

classicsoncall As a Stephen King adaptation, this movie's horror doesn't rely on evil demons, wicked clowns or fairy dust - it's something that could actually happen, and that's what's so powerful about it. I recall reading the novel many years ago and the film managed to stay relatively close to the narrative as far as I can tell since it's been so long.With the backdrop of young Tad Trenton's (Danny Pintauro) fear of going to sleep at night because of the monster in his closet or under the bed, his nightmare is realized when the family car stalls out in a back-woods mechanic's repair yard, abandoned by the owner and his family for extracurricular activities of their own.What follows is a harrowing ordeal that tests the limits of one woman's (Dee Wallace) endurance to keep her young son and herself safe from annihilation. The terror doesn't let up after 'Cujo' makes his first Jaws-like appearance until Donna Trenton takes her broken bat swing in the top of the ninth with no survivors left on base. Even then, there's one final surprise left before Cujo finally goes down for the count.I'd have to say that the make-up folks working on the assortment of St. Bernard's used in the filming did a stand-out job. As the animal became more and more vicious, the caked on blood and gore turned Cujo into one hideous beast. When he rammed the Trenton's car with his head, it's a wonder he didn't knock himself out, one of the more brutal occurrences in this tale of a rabid dog on a rampage.