Until recently I actually assumed that the title was a popular English idiomatic phrase that was taken as the title of the movie rather than the opposite. Personally, it doesn’t make any sense as a movie title without having previously been used as an idiomatic phrase. “The Tall, the Short, and the Obese”. “The Rich, the Poor, and the Wacky.” “The Smart, the Dumb, and the Giant”. If not for the fact that they obviously call out the title in question*, are those at all reasonable titles for movies? I guess that format just has a certain something to it? A rhythm to the words combined with the contrasts that makes it seem cool?
*I noted that perhaps the syllable count was important in the coolness of the title, so I stuck with it.
I am aware that the film is based on a Stephen King work, and I had looked up its full title. It doesn’t change my opinion that it’s not a good title for the film. So I’ll just apportion Stephen King part of the blame. (To be fair to King, an effective title for a short story may not work for a movie.)
I’d have gone with Live Die Repeat, since (a) that’s a hell of a title in general, and (b) it’s perfect for a movie you won’t just call “oh, uh, Tom Cruise gets killed a lot. Like, think Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers? Yeah, so: that.”
I disagree with people here as to several of these titles - no accounting for taste, of course. A good movie title should be memorable, reflective of the tone of the movie, and let you know at least a little of what it’s about. A title that’s a little quirky or cryptic, or even refers to something that’s not central to the film, can be effective, too.
Two good movies (both royal-themed, as it happens) with IMHO blah and unrevealing titles are The Queen (with Helen Mirren as Elizabeth II, dealing with the aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales) and The King (a loose adaptation of Shakespeare’s plays about Prince Hal, first as a dissolute youth and then once he becomes the great warrior-king Henry V). For the first I would’ve gone with Balmoral, After Diana or H.M.; for the second I think Prince Hal, Agincourt or Uneasy Lies the Head would’ve been better titles.
How about Rocky V?
Almost as bad as Rocky IV, but worse was Rocky III
The only good thing about that series of names were the jokes about Rocky LXVII, featuring two geriatric geezers in wheelchairs in a face-off for who can fall asleep the fastest.
=======
Mind you, I’ve always held a private grammar-gripe against
E.T. the Extra Terrestrial.
What does that E.T. stand for, hmm? Extra Terrestrial!
So the movie title is “Extra Terrestrial the Extra Terrestrial.”
That’s like naming a movie “Napoleon’s Wars: The Wars of Napoleon” (which yes, was actually the title of an educational filmette shown in my high school.)
Since I read your post a few days ago, it’s been hovering in the back of my mind. It occured to me that Andy is not the protagonist, it’s Red. Sure, the camera follows Andy’s exploits and he is much of the story but that story is what’s told during lunch (“those of us that remember him, speak of him often”). The breakout is only important in that it changes Red’s mind and prevents him from being institutionalized. Which is also why Brooks suicide was important to the story. If Andy was the protagonist the camera would stay on him througout his trip to Mexico and it would end with him seeing Red walk up to him while cleaning the boat.
The ‘Redemption’ happens when Red talks to the parole board.
There may have been other movies called The Body, and, besides, it makes it sound vaguely like an adult movie.
Agreed. I know it was partly intended to sound like an old-school space opera, but the thing is, it wasn’t an old-school space opera, so it didn’t fit.
Agreed with Green Bean about Office Space and Tim R. Mortiss about Romancing the Stone. Office Space is just bland, seems like a placeholder title they ended up keeping by accident. Maybe something like Oh God It’s Monday. No, that’s still crap, but better than Office Space.
Romancing the Stone just didn’t really make sense. I think Kathleen Turner was meant to be the stone, or maybe Michael Douglas, but they weren’t stony at all.
Sex Kittens Go To College. Awesome title, great trailer, but it’s even worse than you’d think a movie that has both Mamie Van Doren and Conway Twitty would be.
What’s wrong with that title? It sums up the movie (and the book) perfectly. Aging small town lawman Tommy Lee Jones realizes he is just not cut out for the new wave of violence that the drug trade is bringing to his area.
I am not sure that’s a good arch though. Old salty lawman discovers crime, follows trail successfully, discovered it’s too much violence and doesn’t understand it all.
So, the story is he has gotten too old and now sucks at what he is expected to do in the new law enforcement arena. And worse, he doesn’t even ‘understand’ criminals now.
ETA: a thread about title…I guess it’s a good title. Just a shitty plot.
I learnt from QI that the Italian title for The Sound of Music translates as All Together, Passionately, which might have led to disappointment among some customers.
(And apparently one South Korean cinema owner tried to get more customers in by shortening it - he had all the musical numbers cut out).
