All credibility went right out the window after I saw Fabio in one scene as an angel. I couldn't take this movie seriously at all after that. It was like having Dudley Do-Right do a cameo in Scarface (1984).
----------------------------------------------------------
The more I study it, the greater the puzzle becomes.
The Golden Voyage of Sinbad
The cameos are one of the film's major flaws. Everett Koop as himself, Larry King as himself. What's the point? It's invasive and intrusive. Almost as if Blatty is bragging to the audience, "Hey, look at the famous people I know and invited to be in my movie".
shareYou people suck the fun out of everything, it's meant to be a dream. I dreamed about Matthew McConaughey and David Lynch once because I had seen them before I went to sleep.
"Listen, do you smell something? -Ray Stantz"
Sure Fabio is in the dream, but his presence isn't "fun". It's invasive and takes the viewer right out of the movie. Not to mention Everett Koup, Larry King, et al. The dream was meant to be disturbing and Fabio was just a joke, which marred its disturbing atmosphere.
shareDunno... I can only speak for myself but...
That dream sequence creeped me out, and one of the reasons was those strange, for-no-reason cameos, so I guess to each their own.
And didn't we see Patrick Ewing show up too in that same, bizarre sequence?
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
Yeah, Ewing was in the dream sequence (as "the Angel of Death"), as was Samuel Jackson the blind spirit ("the living are deaf").
My only objection was to Fabio because of his romantic and therefore lightweight non-gravitas. I couldn't get creeped out by his presence, so the dream sequence for me was not as horrific and weird as Blatty probably intended it to be.
And I still find the uneccessary presence of Everett Koop and Larry King intrusive in the real-world restaurant sequence. We all know them - but what are they doing in this movie except as distractions?
Koop and King are understandable as this is near Washington DC and was amazed there weren't more [self serving] cameos.
Fabio, was he even famous back then? Can't remember or care... he was too good looking compared to the other angels and shouldn't have been there... angels don't need to be buff ]lol[
angels don't need to be buff
Then my future is ensured.
I didn't mind Fabio in there as I felt he had lent to the surrealism of the dream.
**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.
You must have seen this movie years after it came out. I saw it at the movie theater when it came out and had no idea who Fabio was. My girlfriend and I laughed because the guy looked like someone from one of those paintings of the angel throwing Adam and Eve out of Eden or something!
A couple things:
This was Fabio's first ever in a movie or even on TV.(guess he was trying to break in to film)
He never even had his picture on any book until 2 years before this movie came out.
Even those novel readers had no name to go with the book cover- publishers wanted to keep it that way. He was unknown until years later when he started appearing on late night talk shows.
I remember my wife and I seeing the movie 15 years later ( I married that girl I went to the movie with btw) and saying: "Hey. thats Fabio playing that Angel!"
Neither of us remembered.
And yah, if he was well known at the time, having him in the movie would be kind of tacky..LOL.
Larry King doesn't bother me, but Fabio just came off as stupid. I mean, we all know him for "I cant believe it not buuudddaaa!" Seeing him in the dream as an angel caused a double take with me. I mean, wth?
- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.
I saw the movie in a theatre last year, and Fabio's appearance did get a few titters from the audience. The idea of Fabio in the film has become more ridiculous as time goes on. If memory serves, in the dream sequence in the novel, Humphrey Bogart makes an appearance. Getting a Bogie lookalike would have come across better in the film (Kinderman is a film buff after all) and kept it relevant for future audiences. As it stands it's a silly piece of casting in an otherwise excellent and surreal scene.
shareI saw this movie recently. When I saw Fabio, my assumption was that people in 1990 didn't know who he was, so his presence wouldn't have mattered?
sharePeople who read romances or worked in bookstores (me) knew where they had seen Fabio before - whether his name was known at the time or not.
shareI agree that at the time Fabio and Samuel Jackson would not be that well known to mainstream audiences.
But I don't get why some people have an issue with it. It's a dream sequence, and by that very nature it will not make sense. Most dreams don't. They are random, bizarre and incoherent by nature.
And I will say that the dream sequence in the original movie is still the closest any movie has got to realising a dream sequence on film, in the way that it is completely random, disjointed and yet still disturbing.
Shit took me out.
shareI agree that Fabio was a bit of a misstep. I think it’s because he was considered so tongue in cheek and cheesy back then.
I couldn't figure out why in so many scenes there was like a loud, stomach rumbling and grumbling - like someone had really bad indigestion. I hear it throughout the movie.