Stephen King Has Zero Regrets About Cujo, the Film That Made St. Bernards Infamous—Despite the Fishing Wire Tail Controversy

Stephen King did not wake up one day and decide to make St. Bernards the villain. 'Cujo' started with a real scare, turned into a nasty-good little horror classic, and now it is circling back around with a new version at Netflix. Here is how we got from one bad day in Maine to a remake that might bring back the most stressed-out car ride in horror.

The real-life jolt that sparked 'Cujo'

Back when King was living in Bridgton, Maine, he had a run-in that stuck with him. He rode his motorcycle to a local mechanic’s farmhouse shop, only for the bike to die the second he rolled into the yard. Then out lumbers the biggest Saint Bernard he had ever seen. Nowhere to hide. He was only a little heavier than the dog. He reached out to calm it and the dog lunged, just like in the movie. The mechanic cracked the dog with a steel wrench to stop it, then basically shrugged and said his dog, Bowser, normally behaved and must not have liked King’s face. Great.

King has joked that St. Bernards can look rough in the summer with the droopy jowls and goopy eyes, but he also never regretted writing 'Cujo' after that incident. The story idea clicked when he started turning that scare over in his head. He asked himself a simple, mean question:

'What if the dog was really crazy? Then I thought, maybe it’s rabid.'

Side note that I love: despite the movie’s reputation, St. Bernards are famously sweet dogs. On the 1983 production, the animals were so happy on set that crew had to tie down their wagging tails with fishing line so the dog would look menacing instead of thrilled to be there. That is a wonderfully weird little movie trick.

The 1983 film: messy, tense, still effective

'Cujo' takes a painfully simple setup and squeezes it for all it is worth. A family dog gets bitten, goes rabid, and a mom and her kid end up trapped in their car while the animal slowly loses its mind. No ghosts, no demons, no escape valve. That grounded, ugly realism is why the movie still lands, even with its flaws and the mixed reviews it got at the time. It also helped cement a not-so-flattering image of St. Bernards in the U.S., even though the breed itself is a big softie.

• Title: Cujo
• Release year: 1983
• Genre: Horror
• Based on: Stephen King’s 1981 novel 'Cujo'
• Director: Lewis Teague
• Screenwriters: Don Carlos Dunaway and Barbara Turner, credited under the pen name Lauren Currier
• Main cast: Dee Wallace (Donna Trenton), Daniel Hugh Kelly (Vic Trenton), Danny Pintauro (Tad Trenton)
• Premise: A rabid St. Bernard traps a mother and her son in their car as they fight to survive
• Release date: August 12, 1983
• How they did the dog: four trained St. Bernards, multiple mechanical dogs, and even a black Labrador for specific shots

The practical work still looks strong, and watching a beloved pet turn into a 'monster' rattled a lot of viewers back then. It still does. If you want to revisit it right now, 'Cujo' is streaming on MGM+ and Paramount+ in the U.S.

So about that Netflix remake

Stephen King is having quite a 2025. According to The Hollywood Reporter, producer Roy Lee (It, It Chapter Two) is shepherding a new 'Cujo' at Netflix, which secured the rights in March 2025. The streamer has had a solid run with King material already, including 'Gerald’s Game' and '1922'.

Variety says Darren Aronofsky is the name Netflix is eyeing to direct. He knows his way around anxiety and body-horror-adjacent psychology, and this would reportedly be his first streaming-original feature. The project is still early, and there is no release date yet.

King adaptations are everywhere right now. Mike Flanagan has 'Carrie' on the way, and 'IT: Welcome to Derry' is dropping new episodes weekly. If Netflix pulls the trigger on 'Cujo' with Aronofsky, we might be in for a lean, mean pressure cooker that makes you afraid to start your car. Again.