Horror remakes are a tricky business. For every success that breathes new life into a beloved classic, there’s a soulless cash grab that leaves fans wishing Hollywood had left well enough alone. When news broke that Cujo—Stephen King’s 1981 novel about a rabid St. Bernard terrorizing a mother and her son—was getting a 2025 update, reactions were mixed. The 1983 film adaptation, while not perfect, had its moments of sheer terror, cementing itself as a cult favorite. The question lingered: Did this new version justify its existence, or was it another unnecessary rehash? Fortunately, Cujo (2025) is not just a retelling—it’s a full-blown reinvention that modernizes the terror while respecting its roots.
A Fresh Take on a Familiar Story
Director Fede Álvarez (Don’t Breathe, Evil Dead) brings his signature intensity to Cujo (2025), crafting a film that feels raw, claustrophobic, and deeply unsettling. Rather than a straight-up remake, the film updates the premise with a new backstory and a more psychologically complex approach to its horror. Gone is the simplistic “dog gets rabies, dog goes berserk” setup. Instead, the new Cujo explores themes of environmental collapse, corporate negligence, and the unpredictability of nature—making the horror feel both fresh and eerily relevant.
In this version, Cujo isn’t just an unfortunate pet bitten by a rabid bat. He’s a product of experimental veterinary treatments gone horribly wrong, a subtle nod to modern fears surrounding genetic engineering and Big Pharma. When the Camber family’s massive St. Bernard begins exhibiting erratic behavior, his condition is initially dismissed as a bad reaction to new medication. By the time Donna Trenton (played by Florence Pugh) and her son Tad (newcomer Max Jenkins) find themselves trapped in their overheating car, Cujo is less a rabid animal and more a force of nature—uncontrollable, unrelenting, and disturbingly intelligent.
Performances That Elevate the Horror
At the heart of Cujo (2025) is Florence Pugh’s powerhouse performance. Pugh, who has cemented herself as a modern horror icon with Midsommar and Don’t Worry Darling, brings raw, visceral emotion to Donna Trenton. She’s not just a terrified mother—she’s a woman battling exhaustion, guilt, and the primal instinct to protect her child at any cost. Unlike the 1983 film’s Donna, who was more reactive, Pugh’s version is resourceful and fiercely determined, making her survival feel less like luck and more like sheer willpower.
Opposite Pugh, young Max Jenkins delivers a gut-wrenching performance as Tad. Child actors in horror movies can be hit or miss, but Jenkins nails the desperation and panic of a boy trapped in an unimaginable nightmare. His chemistry with Pugh makes their plight all the more harrowing.
As for Cujo himself, the film uses a blend of practical effects and CGI to create one of the most terrifying on-screen animals in recent memory. Unlike the 1983 film, which was limited by technology and often relied on awkwardly edited dog footage, Cujo (2025) makes its monster feel horrifyingly real. The dog’s eyes, filled with a mix of pain and rage, linger in the mind long after the credits roll.
Tension That Never Lets Up
One of the most impressive aspects of Cujo (2025) is its pacing. The film wastes no time setting up its horror, yet it doesn’t feel rushed. Álvarez masterfully builds tension in small, unsettling increments—an ominous growl in the distance, a fleeting glimpse of something not quite right in Cujo’s behavior. By the time Donna and Tad are trapped in their car, the tension is unbearable.
The heat inside the vehicle becomes a character in its own right. The sweltering summer sun beats down on the battered Ford Explorer, sweat drips, Tad’s breathing becomes labored—it’s suffocating in every sense. Unlike the original film, which struggled with maintaining momentum, this version knows exactly how to escalate the horror, using tight cinematography and relentless editing to make every moment feel like the last.
More Than Just a Monster Movie
What sets Cujo (2025) apart from its predecessor is its thematic depth. While the 1983 film was a straightforward creature feature, Álvarez infuses this version with layers of meaning. The corporate angle—where Cujo’s condition stems from unregulated animal testing—adds a chilling layer of realism. The film doesn’t just ask “What if your beloved pet turned on you?” It asks, “What if human intervention made that inevitable?”
There’s also a deeper psychological horror at play. Donna’s strained marriage, hinted at in the book and original film, is given more weight here. She’s not just fighting Cujo; she’s fighting the creeping realization that she might not make it out of this alive, that Tad might not survive, that she’s failed in ways she never saw coming. These elements make the horror feel more personal, more devastating.
Flaws, But Few and Far Between
If there’s one gripe with Cujo (2025), it’s the occasional overuse of CGI. While Cujo’s movements are convincingly realistic, there are moments—especially in the film’s climax—where the CGI-enhanced rage feels slightly exaggerated. Practical effects would have made these moments even more impactful. Additionally, while the film’s expanded backstory is compelling, some purists may feel it strays too far from King’s original simplicity.
Final Verdict: A Horror Remake Done Right
Horror remakes often fail because they either copy the original too closely or change things so much that they lose what made the story work in the first place. Cujo (2025) strikes the perfect balance. It respects its source material while updating it in ways that feel necessary and urgent. Florence Pugh delivers one of the best horror performances in recent memory, and Fede Álvarez proves once again that he understands how to make audiences squirm.
Is it better than the 1983 version? In almost every way, yes. Is it perfect? Not quite. But Cujo (2025) is the kind of remake that justifies its existence—a gripping, nerve-wracking horror experience that will have audiences thinking twice before approaching even the friendliest of dogs.
Rating: 9/10
