Movies you refuse to see because of its stupid title

Let’s get shallow and judgmental! Maybe these are good movies, but I’ll never know because of their idiotic titles.

Silver Linings Playbook - one of the dumbest titles I’ve seen in a while.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole - um, no.

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? - they sure do.

Fun with Dick and Jane - I doubt it.

eXistenZ - seriously?

Yours?

I have to ask – would you seriously refuse to see a film that was nominated for nine Academy Awards just because you don’t like the title?

That being said – yeah, there are movie titles that annoy me. Zero Dark Thirty is one. Not even sure exactly why.

**Won Ton Ton – The Dog that Saved Hollywood
The Oogieloves Movie
Ballistic – Ecks vs. Sever
Oh Dad, Poor Dad. Mom’s Hung You in the Closet and I’ve Feeling So Bad
Under the Yum Yum Tree
Don’t Worry – we’ll think of a Title
Don’t Raise the Bridge – Lower the Water!
**

You understand the term?

If I recall correctly “Under the Yum Yum Tree” was a funny, innocuous, little comedy.
I have many reasons for not seeing particular movies, but stupid title has never been one of them.

Yes. Yes I would.

It took me five or six years to see Bill And Ted’s Excellent Adventure for two reasons:

  1. The title.
  2. Abe Lincoln yelling “Party on, dudes!” in the trailer.

Once I saw it and realized it’s a fricking hilarious movie, I’ve made sure not to make such judgement errors (at least not for comedies).

Ballistics: Ecks vs. Sever

Came in to mention the title in the last post…

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?
Fun with Dick and Jane
Under the Yum Yum tree
Don’t Raise the bridge - lower the Water

Each of the titles above seems to me evocative enough to make the movie more attractive.

‘They shoot horses’ promises a noirish look at the human condition by proposing/identifyin a dark solution to that condition

Fun is a phrase which resonated with everyone who had reached their majority by the time the film came out.

Yum Yum Tree - Heck, I would want to live there - then you find out it’s about sex! Sexc and “yum yum” offputting?

Don’t rasie the Bridge - this just screams wacky - what kind of fool would find that a solution? jerry Lewis, just the fool for the job.

Already listed in post #3

Yes… I guess maybe it’s just a personal aversion to jargon, especially when it feels like it’s being used to enhance an air of “coolness” in some way. I’m not saying there’s anything objectively wrong with it, it just annoys me personally.

The Shawshank Redemption is one of the stupidest movie titles ever for one of the best movies ever.

Cider House RULES!!

Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot

The Phantom Menace

Don’t Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood

Honey I Shrunk The Kids

How could I forget the recent Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

And once you see the movie, you’d realize the title was perfect, and is one of the great titles in film.

Its so bad my brain has added those word combinations to titles I refuse to see

For me it’s when the title is so unforgivably bland that I’m already irritated at the bankruptcy of imagination. Like Twice Upon A Yesterday, or One Fine Day.

What’s so bad about it? It’s appropriate to the plot of the film and it doesn’t make me cringe on the level of the aforementioned Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
For my own contributions:

Snakes on a Plane - It’s both kinda original in it’s bluntness, not trying to give it some thriller kind of name that that sort of film would typically have, but it’s also really stupid because it’s just broadcasting the entire plot in the title. Either way, based on the title, I’ll never watch it; I’m sure the only part of the film I need to see was Samuel L Jackson’s line in the trailer.

Worse, though, is anything that tries to have a cute pun in it. The offender that immediately comes to mind is the Air Bud series. I had to look it up to remember, but sequels have subtitles of “Golden Receiver”, “World Pup”, “Seventh Inning Fetch”. If you’re going to have a pun, it needs to be clever and there’s nothing clever about those. I can’t watch the films on that principle alone, but I’m also certain they’re utterly terrible.
This isn’t an absolute rule, since there are two obvious exceptions, but films where the title is just the name of the main character. One exception is If it’s a historical person, it’s telling me something about it by saying it’s about J Edgar Hoover or Lincoln or whoever. I still think they should put a bit of effort into it, and either give it a subtitle or give it another title and make “The so-and-so story” the subtitle. If it’s a famous and established fictional character, like Robin Hood or Sherlock Holmes, it’s still telling me something about the film, and it doesn’t need a subtitle unless there’s other recent or well regarded interpretations. But if it’s a new or not well known character, I learn absolutely nothing. For instance, what do I learn about a film called “John Carter”? The film is based on a book that had a different title. I imagine they only adapted part of the book which is why they didn’t use the book title, but still even that title, even if incomplete or with a subtitle way better, even without the subtitle, a sequel just could have been called Part 2 or given another subtitle. But that they couldn’t put any effort into the title to give me any hint at all on what the film is about besides telling me the main character’s name tells me I can’t really expect any effort in the rest of the film. It’s slightly tolerable if there’s something interesting about the character’s name, like at least Max Payne was also the name of the video game and it’s at least a pun, if not particularly clever, and even that film I refused to see for the same reason, though I have seen parts of it when I was bored.

Will it make you feel better or worse to know that in my military career I usually heard it said as “Oh Dark 30?”