[
Sometimes a movie can get almost everything right. Solid script, good director, talented cast, etc. When those elements come together, there’s a high probability that the resulting movie is going to be memorable. Even great movies can sometimes fumble one of the most visible and crucial elements to their success: the title.
Bad movies with bad titles are nothing new. Just ask anyone who has ever seen Ballistics: Ecks vs Sever, a movie so bad it’s not even fun to watch. It makes sense when a terrible movie has an equally terrible title; it’s like a bad omen that warns the audience right at the top that they are not in for a good time. When a genuinely good movie has a bad title, however, it makes the error all the more egregious. How could so many people make so many of the right decisions and then collectively screw up when it comes to the first impression a movie has on an audience? The following movies may be fondly remembered, but their titles should’ve been forgotten. These entries are ranked in order of how bad their titles are.
15
‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ (2014)
Back in 1968, Planet of the Apes showed that even a goofy premise can result in an awfully original, fun, and even thought-provoking dystopian sci-fi movie. The franchise that came after that has been almost entirely composed of movies whose titles are all derived from the same structure, and the reboot trilogy centered on Andy Serkis‘ Caesar was no exception. Rise of the Planet of the Apes had a good enough title, but Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a whole other story.
It may be a pretty minor gripe in the grand scheme of things, but aren’t Rise and Dawn practically synonymous in a case like this one? Those who aren’t all that familiar with the trilogy may not even know when to start, because both Rise and Dawn sound like they’re the beginning of the series. It’s a silly mistake, and though this sequel’s title certainly carries some level of aura, it’s not enough to compensate for the confusion. —Diego Pineda Pacheco
14
‘John Carter’ (2012)
Directed by none other than Andrew Stanton of Wall-E and Finding Nemo fame, John Carter is one of Disney’s most polarizing—and therefore, most underrated—movies of the 2010s. Based on A Princess of Mars, the first book of the iconic Barsoom series of novels by the pulp fiction author Edgar Rice Burroughs, it’s definitely a deeply flawed film. It’s also, however, visually impressive and full of delightful spectacle.
The title, however, makes the film sound like some kind of boring period biopic. The project originally carried the infinitely cooler and more fitting title John Carter of Mars, but Disney decided to drop the “of Mars” part out of fear that audiences would get confused with the then-recent flop Mars Needs Moms. They also refused to use the A Princess of Mars title, and as a result, we’re stuck with a film that’s far better than it gets credit for, but has an undeniably uninteresting title as a hook. — Diego Pineda Pacheco
13
‘Quantum of Solace’ (2008)
Mileage may vary on one’s enjoyment of this James Bond adventure. Its troubled production during a writer’s strike resulted in a film that many considered vastly inferior to its predecessor, Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace‘s grim tone and shaky-cam style action sequences rubbed many audiences the wrong way at the time of its release. In the decade-plus since its release, many have come to defend the film, with some calling it the most underrated James Bond movie. One thing no one is coming to defend, however, is that title.
Bond movies have a history of unique titles. Some are eloquent or have a sense of intrigue, like The Spy Who Loved Me. Some are simple but effective and tie into their film’s plot, like GoldenEye or Thunderball. Others are just plain lurid and make enabling safe search when googling them a necessity, like Octopussy. What all these titles have in common is that they are memorable. Quantum of Solace sounds like part of a complicated SAT question. The blame can’t be laid at the producer’s feet for coming up with this title. It originated with Bond creator Ian Fleming as the title of a short story featuring the spy. Even so, this title should have never made it into multiplexes and should have been left the same as Bond leaves his one-night stands: alone.
12
‘Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire’ (2009)
Precious, as most normal viewers refer to it as, is a rather harrowing viewing experience that deals in some extremely uncomfortable subject material. It remains director Lee Daniels‘ best film, features a no-holds-barred performance from Mo’Nique that resulted in an unlikely Oscar win, and it introduced audiences to Gabourey Sidibe, in one of the best film acting debuts of all time. It’s a shame the movie got saddled with such a cumbersome title during its promotion, and all because of a movie that hardly anyone remembers.
Originally, the film was going to be titled Push, the same as its source material, but unfortunately, another film with that title was already in production. That film, starring Chris Evans and Dakota Fanning, features people with telekinetic abilities on the run in Hong Kong. The fact that Daniel’s heart-wrenching drama had to settle for a title that was once used as a punchline on The Office to make way for a pseudo-superhero action movie is almost as depressing as the plot of Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.
11
‘Edge of Tomorrow’ (2014)
Edge of Tomorrow is one of the best sci-fi action films to be released in the last ten years, and one of the most rewatchable Tom Cruise movies from that same period that isn’t a part of a franchise, though Warner Bros. keeps asking for a sequel to it. With the studio so high on a follow-up, it seems they would’ve thought twice before giving the film a title so generic it could be sold on store shelves next to boxes of Fruit Rounds.
While the studio was justifiably hesitant to use the title of the original book the movie is based on, All You Need is Kill, they ended up going too far in the opposite direction. For a film where Tom Cruise plays a coward who gets killed repeatedly by aliens while stuck in a time loop, the title does nothing to help sell that amazing premise. The studio realized its mistake when the film struggled at the box office, despite the love from critics at the time. They scrambled and, much like in the movie, tried to reset and rebrand it as Live.Die.Repeat, a much better title, but it was too little, too late.
10
‘Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans’ (2009)
The original Bad Lieutenant was an all-time crime masterpiece starring Harvey Keitel and directed by provocateur Abel Ferrara. This film has nothing to do with the previous film except that it features a lead character who is a lieutenant who is the opposite of good. It stars Nicolas Cage, giving a gonzo performance, and was directed by fellow provocateur Werner Herzog. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is its own thing entirely, and had it been titled anything else, it could’ve been judged as such.
Herzog, for his part, disliked the idea of his film sharing a title with Ferrara’s and fought against it. The producers won out and, instead of proclaiming the film as an original, gave it that awful subtitle to try to differentiate it. It overshadows what is one of Nicolas Cage’s best movies with a title that makes it seem like a cheap direct-to-video sequel.
9
‘Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)’ (2014)
Talk about pretentious. Alejandro G. Iñárritu‘s Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), one of the best comedy movies to ever win the Best Picture Oscar, is an undeniably phenomenal movie with a unique framing device and no shortage of creativity. Made to appear as though it was filmed in one continuous take, this satirical black dramedy is one of the best films ever made about artistic obsession. It also, however, has a pretty terrible title.
Birdman would have been a far snappier, more memorable, more to-the-point title. Everything else simply comes across as awfully pretentious, and as a result, it’s no surprise that people generally just end up calling the movie Birdman anyway. Perhaps this title holds some kind of meta commentary, seeing as it’s not like its protagonist lacks any degree of unnecessary showiness, but it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. —Diego Pineda Pacheco
8
‘Halloween’ (2018)
Halloween is not a bad title. It’s actually a very simple and evocative title that would be great for a horror movie… in 1978. David Gordon Green’s legacy sequel kicked off a trilogy that was divisive to say the least, but the first film still ranks highly, with some even arguing it to be better than the John Carpenter original. What cannot be argued is that titling the film the same as the 1978 classic is just plain lazy. It’s also a search engine nightmare for anyone trying to find the correct movie, since the title is also shared by Rob Zombie‘s 2007 remake.
The 2018 film wasn’t the first legacy sequel to try out the copy-paste naming convention. The Thing prequel from 2011 and the Final Destination franchise had both played in these waters before, but no one cared about those movies at the time enough for it to matter. This was a huge release, heralding the return of the Shape and Jamie Lee Curtis to one of the most iconic horror franchises of all time. A moment like that deserves a bit more creativity.
7
‘The Shawshank Redemption’ (1994)
For many years, Frank Darabont‘s The Shawshank Redemption has been at the very top of IMDb’s list of the top 250 movies on the platform. It’s hardly a surprise. Based on a Stephen King novella, this prison drama is one of the most beautiful tales of friendship, justice, and aging that American cinema has ever had to offer. That makes it even more of a surprise that the film was a box office flop at the time of its release.
Seeing as it’s one of the most perfect movie adaptations of all time that we’re talking about, how could such a thing have happened? According to the people behind the film, including stars like Tim Robbins, the title had something to do with it. They argue that it was both hard to remember and hard to pronounce. With the benefit of hindsight, that may no longer seem true, but it’s not impossible to see how that could have been the case back when the movie was completely new. If a title plays a part in a movie flopping, it’s nothing if not a failed title. —Diego Pineda Pacheco
6
‘Sorcerer’ (1977)
Much like Halloween, the title Sorcerer on its own isn’t bad. It might work well for a fantasy or a supernatural horror film. What it does not work for is a white-knuckle thriller involving men driving nitroglycerin through the jungle. Sorcerer was the late, great William Friedkin’s follow-up to The Exorcist, a remake of the classic suspense film The Wages of Fear. Technically, the title references the name of one of the trucks featured in the film, but by the director’s own admission, it was a poor attempt to subconsciously link the film to his horror-defining masterpiece. The film did not enjoy the same box office success, however, likely due to a little film called Star Wars being released one week later.
For audiences who may have been disappointed they weren’t getting a horror film featuring possessed trucks, they overlooked what is an absolute masterpiece, and may even be Friedkin’s greatest film. Thanks to the support of fellow filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, the reassessment of the film has far surpassed its poor title choice. Fans now should just be thankful the film wasn’t released under its working title: Ballbreaker.
https://static0.colliderimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/edge-of-tomorrow_a9344a.jpg?w=1600&h=900&fit=crop
https://collider.com/good-movies-bad-titles-ranked/
William Smith
Almontather Rassoul
