Best & Worst of Film Titles

It’s amazing what you can get used to in a name and film titles are no exception. Once a film enters the mainstream, its title generally just becomes part of the canon, something we accept without paying it a second thought.

What can’t be stressed enough though is that the naming of a film is an art form in itself and represents an enormous task. All of us have had instances where we’ve declared a film ‘sounds interesting’ based on the title alone and on the flip side, we’ve all internally responded ‘ew’ to a film title without any further knowledge of the film itself. This showcases the function of a film title as the film’s 1-second pitch, produced with the intent of compacting 90+ minutes of subject matter, themes, and character arcs into a single punchy phrase. It is absolutely not an easy task and most of my own writing projects have spent the majority of their production life either untitled or with a *W.T. (Working Title) noted next to its original title, indicating “this will not do” and reminding myself that’s something I must fix further down the line.

In this article, I will list 5 films that in my opinion smash it out the park in terms of capturing the essence of their story, and 5 films that completely miss the mark with their 1-second pitch.

BEST: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

A phrase that has deep-rooted origins, appearing in Tennessee Williams’ 1937 play The Glass Menagerie describing a character who has become rich dealing stocks in New York, and even before that, in an 1875 National Conservative critique of American railroad magnate and widely unpopular figure Jay Gould, labelling him a wolf of Wall Street, and stating his only lust was for gold.

Despite the film’s implication, the phrase did not appear in Forbes’ 1990 expose of Stratton Oakmont, so it’s unclear from exactly where Jordan Belfort derived the name for his 2007 memoir, however he would retain some credit if he did so conscious of both the phrase’s positive and negative connotations. I’d also give some credit to the film adaption itself for sticking with the name when other studios might have gone for a snappier but more basic “Stratton Oakmont”, “money game” or simply “Belfort” (in absolutely massive bold letters).

The domesticated wolf is hailed for guardianship and loyalty, evidenced in this film by Jordan throwing a protective ring around his close allies and co-founders, including alerting them that he’s wearing a wire at breach of his own deal with the police, whereas Stratton employees outside his close circle are afforded the treatment of being fired on the spot simply for cleaning a fish tank.

The domesticated wolf however acts in complete contrast to the character archetype of the big bad wolf, a deceptive (Jordan’s pump-and-dump selling style) and predatory (one who preys on others) villain. Such a character was formed at a time when attacks by wolves were a very real threat and fables depicting them as villains were an effective way to discourage any adventures into forests where such encounters may take place. A film like this exists now at a time when a wolf of Wall Street is a real threat, one who achieves personal wealth by preying on your money, all the while promising you the same wealth. Be it sheep’s clothing or an Armani suit, the big bad wolf is on display here, as Scorsese’s epic takes you into the world of a modern day revival of a villain archetype that has been around for centuries.

Also, five words, one syllable each, with alliteration? Full marks all round.

Worst: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Hard to write as this is genuinely one of my favourite films, it’s an adventure epic as well as a strong critique of materialism, with a young Haley Joel Osment giving an out of this world acting performance. My main qualms lie with the title of the film and the fact that it’s A.I. and Artificial Intelligence. There’s no need for the initialism if they then say the words anyway, but if A.I. is meant to be disambiguous and potentially referring to several things, then ‘artificial intelligence’ should be removed so it can fully be left to the reader’s interpretation. There’s simply no need for both.

A more general criticism of the title is that it regards to subject matter rather than the story, and is too broad a subject to paint a picture in the audience’s head, as A.I. could be anything from a lifelike child replica to a chess playing computer. The usage of the title is essentially this film declaring itself the ‘official film of artificial intelligence’, when many popular films including 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, and The Terminator had all tackled the subject long before.

Best: Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

It’s simple, it tells you what’s going to happen, it puts a picture in your head, and it maps out the story coming your way. Further to that, there’s an irony about the title, we associate weddings as joyous occasions, so the multitude of them in the title (Four weddings? Four? That’s insane) would imply an overwhelmingly joyous feel about the film, something contradicted by the sudden inclusion of a funeral, creating intrigue regarding it’s presence.

It tells us about it’s lead too. Weddings are traditionally meant to be for life so for to have four in the film instead of the standard one already foreshadows the hopeless romantic nature of Hugh Grant’s character. One could also unintentionally interpret the title as a timeline (Four Weddings and then a Funeral), which implies a chaotic tale at best and draws interest to the protagonist, painting them as a pint-sized Henry the 8th.

The title also creates tension and mystery. It gives you information that the characters don’t have. From the start of the film, no one is planning a funeral or knows one is going to take place, so the title already has you wondering what will cause the funeral, what dynamics will be affected by said funeral, and which unfortunate character will it be in honour of.

Worst: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)

My initial disdain for this title stemmed from the inclusion of the name Skywalker, when no Star Wars film prior to this had featured a character name in its title. Okay maybe you could make a case for Solo: A Star Wars story but no, Attack of the Clones definitely doesn’t count.

The main problem here however is that it’s been done. The Phantom Menace was ‘the rise of Skywalker’. A New Hope was ‘the rise of Skywalker’. As a matter of fact, those films would have been more in their rights to use this title as Anakin and Luke are of Skywalker blood as opposed to Rey, no matter how frequently or dramatically she may profess otherwise.

Best: American Beauty (1999)

There are a few too many films of the American [Noun] genre. This title fits this film perfectly however, especially when partnered with the original tagline that appears on several posters, “…look closer.”

The title tells us that this film will portray beauty in its most American form and the irony is that, bar a plastic bag caught in the breeze, there is nothing beautiful about this film. Lead character Lester Burnham leads the idealistic American life; a well-paying job, a big house in a friendly neighbourhood, a beautiful wife and a smart daughter. Yet he’s miserable, and any attempt to make himself happier is met with fierce retaliation and resentment from his family. His is an ugly environment where any beauty in sight is either rotting or a front; his wife uses materialism to mask her own dissatisfaction, his daughter is a cheerleader despite low self-esteem and a disdain for the shallow nature of the activity, his neighbour puts on a masculine homophobic front to mask his internal sexual feelings, and his obedient son uses a waiting job as a front to sell marijuana to fund his goal to leave home.

A fantastic film with a title bursting with irony. The film opens with all the characters living their American Beauty, and as we look closer in, we see it’s slowly ruining their lives.

Worst: Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019)

Where to start with this one. This film title came directly from remarks made by Judge Cowart upon sentencing infamous serial killer Ted Bundy to death. Now I’m not saying the Judge was wrong, rather he pretty much nails it with his description of Bundy.

The issue here is that it’s a title that sets the bar for the character too high. It promises a Hannibal Lecter/Anton Chigurh calibre antagonist, which while Ted Bundy arguable lives up to this, we don’t see this side of him in the movie. The majority of Bundy’s extremely wicked, shockingly evil and vile side isn’t covered on screen and only brought up through expositional dialogue. Instead, we merely see his smooth-talking, manipulative, and infuriatingly ineffective escapist side.

The obvious answer to this is that the film is from the perspective of Bundy’s girlfriend who both hasn’t seen these events and defends his innocence to the end. In this instance it’s fair to say the title misses the subject by describing Ted Bundy and promising a Ted Bundy film when it’s actually about the impact on his partner.

More generally, the title is just three ways of saying this guy was bad, which the audience doesn’t really need reminding of. No one was genuinely going into this film thinking “you know what? I’m willing to hear this guy out”.

On a linguistic scale, man is it clunky. There’s no flow to the point that it took countless attempts initially for me to recall the name correctly. Even further, the fact that there are 3 adjectives to only 2 adverbs does a disservice to the vileness of the character too, suggesting he is only base-level vile, whereas a quick scan of Bundy’s wikipedia would suggest drastically otherwise.

Best: True Romance (1993)

Much like American Beauty, this a film title that is ironic without being misleading. The two leads experience love at first sight and the story is driven by their love for each other, spending the film on a road trip through sunny Los Angeles chasing the perfect life together over the soundtrack of You’re So Cool by Hans Zimmer. It’s everything you’d want from a romantic tale. Likely none of us have ever shot Gary Oldman as a romantic gesture before but who are we to judge someone in love?

The film’s tagline sums it up better than I could; Stealing, cheating, killing…who says romance is dead?

Worst: Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

We have to talk about the phenomena of selecting song titles for music biopics. Straight Outta Compton is perfect as it tells a story in its title and it’s the attitude derived from their experiences growing up in Compton that drove the group to worldwide success. Rocketman just about works as it describes a character and could be a metaphor comparing his rise to fame to an ascent into space. Bohemian Rhapsody I would argue has been chosen purely as it’s Freddie Mercury of Queen’s most universally acclaimed song and ‘people like the song, therefore they’ll want to see the film’.

Even We Will Rock You or Don’t Stop Me Now could have worked better as they communicate his existence as a natural born entertainer and a desire for the thrill of performing to never stop. And if we have to use the argument that ‘in many ways, Freddie Mercury’s life was like a bohemian rhapsody’ then I’d suggest we’re reaching quite a bit.

Best: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

On a minimal level we expect impartiality from film titles, for them to communicate without passing judgment on the content of the film. The labelling of Robert Ford draws attention, and given our expectations for film titles, makes us immediately suspect that its usage might be intentionally misleading.

The title puts a picture in your mind, ‘assassination’ gives you a clue that there will be some elements of action and the fact Jesse James was well known means we know the setting the film will take place in as well as the type of character that the cast will comprise. Much like Four Weddings, none of the characters at the start know Jesse James will be assassinated so we have information the characters don’t have, and we know the event that the film will lead up to. This title is able to stop this being a spoiler by changing the function of the movie from an action into, in essence, a character study.

Quite simply, the title promises action, paints a picture, gives the story a direction, and tells us our role in the story; we are the jury, to watch and decide whether cowardice was indeed the driving factor behind Robert Ford’s assassination of Jesse James.

Worst: The Internship (2013)

Does this sound interesting? Does it really? If you knew nothing else about it, would the words ‘The Internship’ be enough to make you enter a cinema to find out more?

I’m not even gonna criticise this title for declaring itself the official film of internships because I don’t suspect many films are vying to enter that field. My main criticism is that it does the film a disservice. It’s not the most thought-invoking film in the world but it has some good humour, strong chemistry between Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, some fun dynamics with some of the supporting cast, all built around a competition film format. The title however gives the suggestion that the thought process that went into making this film was “Has anyone made a film about I don’t know…internships yet? No? Okay that’s what we’re doing.”

I would assume that the main reason for this title is that they could only come up with two titles that effectively captured the content of this movie: The Internship and Google: The Advert. In that case you can’t really blame them for choosing the least provocative one.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Thank you to anyone who read this! Would love to hear any thoughts, if anyone wants to stick up for the worst of titles I’ve covered or if there are other titles at either end of the scale I’ve missed out!

To finish off I wanted to cover Sunday’s Oscar ceremony briefly, I called 14/23 winners correctly which I’m considering a success, and I’ve ultimately no qualms with any of the eventual winners on the night. Here are some of my main thoughts on the ceremony as a whole;

First thought: What was that ending? The academy should already know who’s winning each category before the event begins and it shouldn’t take a genius to know that having a grand acceptance speech at the end is usually the best way to sign off, and that’s why it’s always been Best Picture last on the night. It’s objectively the biggest award and a culmination of all the other achievements on the night, and having it last keeps engagement up throughout the night as you suspect which films, due to the wins it has amassed throughout, stands in greatest stead to win the grand prize at the end of it all. To rearrange it to put Best Lead Actor last, only to have no one accept the award for it, is the most baffling thing they could have done and shouldn’t need explaining as to why.

Second thought: That In Memoriam section. Traditionally we’d have a performance of a slow ballad that merely acts as a mood setter for us to focus on honouring the celebrities that appear on screen. The music played I found too fast and chorus-y and in turn completely the wrong tone for the moment. What’s even worse was the decision to cut the celebrities in and out in time with the music, which means there were many celebrities who gave their lives to cinema, legendary actress Cloris Leachman for example, who were on screen for barely half a second. The manner in which the montage speeds through the cast & crew, allowing almost no time to acknowledge each one before it’s already moved on, felt a pretty tasteless tribute to the lives it was supposed to be honouring.

Third thought: Disservice to the films on show. It was a nice touch to hear more about each nominees personal backgrounds and influences in film, unfortunately though all this information became very hard to retain. Pictures however are easy to remember, previous ceremonies have had short clips accompanying the reading of the nominees, which not only made it to easy to appreciate the work that had gone into the film, but gave you a glimpse of the films you hadn’t seen. Many snippets drive a “ooh that looks interesting” form of curiosity, that in turn drives more viewers to the films honoured.

Fourth thought: Some great speeches. Despite a criminal failure from the producers of My Octopus Teacher to shout out the live octopus at the heart of their story, I found there were some very nice speeches throughout the night. Daniel Kaluuya looked to be having a blast, Chloe Zhao’s speech was full of passion, Frances McDormand’s speech was short and sweet with the casual demeanour only a 3-time Best Lead Actress could get away with, and Youh Yuh-jung’s humour-packed speech was the highlight of the night.

Final thought: Please get a host. They’ve had their fun with the no host thing but now it’d be nice to go back to the night having a clear vision and a bit more fun. The antics of the host have provided some of the most memorable Oscar moments in recent years, from Chris Rock’s stellar opening monologue to Jimmy Kimmel’s night-long tormenting of Matt Damon. My call to host next year would be Andy Samberg or Dave Chapelle, though at this point I wouldn’t even mind if they did select Kimmel for what would feel like the 20th year in a row.