criterionforum.org

McCrutchy wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2026 12:55 am Anthony Newley's Can Heironymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness? (1969), could actually be simultaneously good, bad and the "greatest" title ever, depending on how you define the last. As far as I can tell, it has never legally been on video.

One of the greatest ego trips to ever be financed by a major studio. It also shamelessly steals from multiple Fellini films

I've always been curious about the title of Robert Hossein's film Toi, le venin, which has the tawdry English
title of Nude in a White Car (presumably to cash in on the...

Spoiler

three seconds of nudity in the film.

I was wondering if the French title is perhaps a turn of phrase. I know that venin can alternatively mean poison
or spite so I wasn't sure.

It’s poison, a line from the source novel

Je suis peut-etre la vipere, en tout cas c'est toi le venin...

(I may be the viper, but you are the venom…)

BoltzmannBrain wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2026 2:46 pm I dislike short, extremely basic and bland movie titles like Father, or Mother, or Boy, House, Air, Life, Moon, Water, It, Good, Old, Michael, Patrick, The Woman, The Hand, The Accountant, The Room, The Monster, The Car, The Box, The Paper, The Road, etc. They feel like placeholder titles that were meant to exist only until the filmmakers could come up with something better, but because nobody had any good ideas the placeholder title stayed as the final title. They tell of a severe lack of imagination and make me think that the film's screenplay is probably equally empty and uninspired.

I feel the same. Especially with 'The ....' titles, where the subject is an everyday thing (unlike The Shining for example). Once a film earns its place the perception of those title changes completely, Sidney Lumet has a string of examples - The Verdict, The Offence, The Hill - all powerhouses, where mention of them vividly evokes for me the settings and the characters, but as a starting point, as a marketing hook, those titles are piss weak.
Paul Greengrass has a film coming out about the 14th century peasant revolt in England, which is a rare opportunity, and a very rarified and evocative setting, not to mention drama-scape, and yet they settled on 'The Uprising'?! A title that carries not one iota of the character of the era.

Jason Statham is the king of the mononym film, making me suspect that it’s a stratagem to convey to his audience, “ There’s no messing about with The Stath! No characterisation or theme bollocks!” So far he’s appeared in Snatch, Cellular, Revolver, London, Chaos, Crank, War, 13, Blitz, Safe, Parker, Homefront, Spy, Shelter and Mutiny (from the makers of Plane).

I hate films using titles that have already been used with the exception of remakes and adaptations of book and plays, etc and when a film has already used the title of a play or book that it was not based on and than the later is adapted - that doesn't bother me.

The thread just under this in active topics, Obsession, being a great example of that. The MPAA has rules about titles being too similar or the same via their title regulation bureau, but if you’re not a participating member (say, an independent release or foreign import) then there’s nothing stopping you from using the title assuming it’s not trademarked. But more likely, to use my example, Obsession’s distributor presumably cleared the title with the De Palma film’s holders (especially since Barker’s movie was not a high profile film at the outset, they probably just asked for a nominal fee, if even that). Still, this is why we have Lee Daniel’s the Butler instead of just the Butler

I’m fascinated by Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire, which is indeed the official title.

Films like Idiocracy and the 2016 Ghostbusters were essentially released WITHOUT official titles. The former went out as Untitled Mike Judge Comedy and the latter has been called Ghostbusters: Answer the Call and just Ghostbusters

domino harvey wrote:The thread just under this in active topics, Obsession, being a great example of that. The MPAA has rules about titles being too similar or the same via their title regulation bureau, but if you’re not a participating member (say, an independent release or foreign import) then there’s nothing stopping you from using the title assuming it’s not trademarked. But more likely, to use my example, Obsession’s distributor presumably cleared the title with the De Palma film’s holders (especially since Barker’s movie was not a high profile film at the outset, they probably just asked for a nominal fee, if even that). Still, this is why we have Lee Daniel’s the Butler instead of just the Butler

Ah, that probably explains the recent Lee Cronin’s The Mummy. On release, I thought it was a wild bit of vanity for him to think he’d become a household auteur from directing one fairly successful Evil Dead sequel. What you’re saying makes a bit more sense.

MPA title registration is also limited to 100 per company, so it's possible "Obsession" wasn't one of the titles Columbia chose to register (but I'd think it would be given how simple and generic it is). Universal has naturally opted to register the titles of their classic horror franchises, which not only explains Lee Cronin's The Mummy but also Bram Stoker's Dracula—though the recent Besson film was released in the U.S. as just plain Dracula, so either Universal was surprisingly willing to permit use of the title or (more likely IMO) its U.S. distributor Vertical has never signed on with the Title Registration Bureau.

beamish14 wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2026 4:08 pm I’m fascinated by Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire, which is indeed the official title.

I have always hated the full title and like many others always drop everything after the colon when referring to it. Though it does differentiate it from others of the same name, I can’t recall what they may have been. An IMDB search has turned up nothing with just the single word Precious, so it’s not like it was taken already. Maybe they wanted an excuse to name drop the author.

Even weirder, the original title of the film was Push: Based on the Novel by Sapphire, but Precious was added to avoid confusion with another movie called Push starring Chris Evans.

I don’t know why it had such an awkward title to begin with, but probably some contractual thing with the writer, Sapphire.

Sapphire claimed that the title Push: Based on the Novel by Sapphire was the first attempt to placate the people behind the Chris Evans movie, but even that wasn't acceptable to them, hence the change to Precious. She says the movie was originally just called Push and it sounds like that was her preference, so I gather "Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire" was appended to the final title for marketing purposes.

And for yet more weirdness, there was a movie tie-in edition of the novel that used the film's title, including "Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire."

Like that book cover, all the promotional materials I've seen have not used a colon and put all the subsequent wording well below the word Precious in a different font and color and smaller size, making it look like a pull quote rather than part of the title.

domino harvey wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2026 2:36 pm The thread just under this in active topics, Obsession, being a great example of that. The MPAA has rules about titles being too similar or the same via their title regulation bureau, but if you’re not a participating member (say, an independent release or foreign import) then there’s nothing stopping you from using the title assuming it’s not trademarked. But more likely, to use my example, Obsession’s distributor presumably cleared the title with the De Palma film’s holders (especially since Barker’s movie was not a high profile film at the outset, they probably just asked for a nominal fee, if even that). Still, this is why we have Lee Daniel’s the Butler instead of just the Butler

I never knew permission to use the same title in certain circumstances.

Ironically, Obsession was one that came to mind when I posted my comments.

I'd like to throw in Owning Mahowney, like a couple of clattery dice on a craps table.

First of all, I've never liked a lot of present participle titles to begin with, they can carry a certain smugness or gleefulness or something, which just feels like they are getting ahead of themselves, and assuming too much about whether I'm going to go on this journey with them. Finding Nemo is fine obviously, but Finding Forrester feels like I'm still being treated like a child. Almost always these titles sound better to me when the 'ing' is dropped - Kill Zoe, Drive Miss Daisy, Raise Arizona, Be John Malkovich. But maybe that's just me.
Save Private Ryan doesn't work. Fuck Private Ryan would though, and it would be in line with the far more convincing side of that film's contradictory tonal palette.
Anyway, there was a spate of present participle titles in the early 2000s and it just got my nerves, but it is the lesser offence here.

Now I'm all for using complimentary syllables in a title. A lot of the best titles apply a nice vowel flow to help it roll off the tongue and stick in the mind.
BUT, when you're too obvious about it, you ruin it. You ruin it for everyone.
Whatever draw there might be for me watching Owning Mahowny, it cannot stand up to the deterrent of that goofy, oafish pairing.

Aunt Peg wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2026 7:36 am

domino harvey wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2026 2:36 pm The thread just under this in active topics, Obsession, being a great example of that. The MPAA has rules about titles being too similar or the same via their title regulation bureau, but if you’re not a participating member (say, an independent release or foreign import) then there’s nothing stopping you from using the title assuming it’s not trademarked. But more likely, to use my example, Obsession’s distributor presumably cleared the title with the De Palma film’s holders (especially since Barker’s movie was not a high profile film at the outset, they probably just asked for a nominal fee, if even that). Still, this is why we have Lee Daniel’s the Butler instead of just the Butler

I never knew permission to use the same title in certain circumstances.

Ironically, Obsession was one that came to mind when I posted my comments.

Another interesting title dispute that De Palma was involved in was Snake Eyes, which reportedly was the title of a porno movie from the 80’s. In 1993, Abel Ferrara made a movie called Snake Eyes and was in a dispute with the owners of the porno film, who wanted an exorbitant amount for the use of the title. In the end, Ferrara released the film as Dangerous Game due to not being able to settle with the other party. A few years later, De Palma released his own Snake Eyes, presumably after paying through the nose for the title.

I have never seen the film but I think the title is one of the worst ever: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009). I suppose if I saw the film the title would make sense but the title is a contributing factor in me not wanting to watch the film.

It’s a romantic comedy version of A Christmas Carol (“Ghosts of Christmas Past”) where McConaughey is visited by specters of his previous conquests, so it’s actually quite accurate

There was a little discussion in the Claire Denis thread about the banal English-language titles of some of her films compared to their original French titles (The Fence, Let the Sunshine In, Fire [the original English title for Avec amour et acharnement before it was changed to Both Sides of the Blade]). That reminded me of Susanne Bier's Hævnen, which translates literally to "The Revenge," which is not only boring but probably also confusable with Götz Spielmann's film from a couple years prior, Revanche, which also translates literally to "Revenge." So what was the solution? To change it in many territories to In a Better World (or the local language equivalent), which just sounds like a soap opera title.

It won the Oscar, though, so what do I know?

Reminds me of Petzold's second to last, where the more poetic Roter Himmel (lit. red sky, or if you're feeling poetic, the red heavens) became the prosaic Afire.

I'd like to know who made the call to re-title Mizoguchi's Akasen Chitai, or Red Light District, the cheap and pulpy sounding Street of Shame.

I catch myself wishing that when Criterion give it its own release, they'll drop the western title altogether.

Mr Sausage wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2026 11:48 am Reminds me of Petzold's second to last, where the more poetic Roter Himmel (lit. red sky, or if you're feeling poetic, the red heavens) became the prosaic Afire.

I saw an interview or Q&A or something where Petzold said he actually preferred the English title for the pun/double meaning ("afire" / "a fire"), which is fair enough but doesn't really bring anything to the table if you ask me.

Petzold:

I’m curious about the English title, Afire, because the German title, Roter himmel, is different—it translates to “The Red Sky.”

I never heard this word, “afire,” before, but I like the sound. It means, I would say, “enflamed”—it’s an action, not a Technicolor picture. The original title was The Happy Ones, but there was a director who already had the rights, so I had to change it…

[…] I wrote down this story in three or four days and called it The Happy Ones. Because everybody’s telling them, “You are the happy generation! You have everything!” Then I had to change it, and I remembered one of my favorite German movies from the New German Cinema of the 1960s and ’70s, Red Sun by Rudolf Thome. The ending is a little like in Duel in the Sun: by a small lake near Munich, [the characters] shoot at each other because they love each other. So I came to The Red Sky. But the American title is much better, Afire! There’s more action.

Did you choose the American title?

No, but they asked me, and one of my favorite movies is The Big Sky by Howard Hawks. It also has a scene like Duel in the Sun… They’re punching each other and a friendship starts, through male violence. I like this scene very much. But I thought The Red Sky would sound too much like a western, so I agreed with Afire.

Speaking of Petzold's titles, one particularly amusing bit in Afire involves him making fun of one of his own previous titles!

Thanks for posting that. Petzold seems to find more poetry and resonance in the English word than I do. It feels to me like a static description rather than the passion and action it conjures for him. But that subterranean allusive network he’s describing seems pure him, and gives a good account of how he thinks.