5 of the worst movie titles
Posted September 5
BAD NAMINGTON — The latest boxing offering from Hollywood is the true story about Roberto Duran, starring Robert De Niro and Edgar Ramirez. While the movie may be fantastic, the name leaves me a little wanting: “Hands of Stone.”
I don’t know what it is, but that name just doesn’t resonate with me. As weak as I thought it was, my fellow contributor Travis Poppleton, thought it was downright atrocious. I didn’t think it was that bad, but it got me thinking, “What are the worst movie titles?”
This question opened a rabbit hole I was not ready to go down, but I went any way. How far did I go? I found a fun little made-for-TV movie called “Mother, May I Sleep with Danger?” That one kind of took the cake for me, but I decided I needed some rules to compile the list.
This list of worst movie titles will not include made-for-TV movies or straight to video — sorry Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, but that means “How the West Was Fun” didn’t make the list.
This list is only compiled of theatrical releases, and just because the name is terrible doesn’t mean the film is. Some of these films are actually fantastic, but some are not. Some are as bad as their namesake.
So, with all that laid out, let’s get into it. Here is a list of five of the worst movie titles of all time:
The 2005 film “The Constant Gardener” is a really fantastic film with solid performances and a brilliantly constructed script. It would seem, however, that the writer ran out of creative juices when it came to the title.
I know, I know, if you’ve seen the film the title makes sense, but it did no favors in selling this film. The title “The Constant Gardener” sounds like a term I’d use to describe my father-in-law on the weekends rather than a tight thriller complete with betrayl, murder and corporate corruption.
Great film, not a great title.
The original Rambo film wasn’t actually called “Rambo” — it was called “First Blood.” But many of us forget that and think that it was titled after the main character John Rambo. When “First Blood” was a huge success, a sequel was inevitable, but did the title have to be so confusing?
Instead of just calling it “Rambo” or “Return to Vietnam” or something like that, the filmmakers decided to go with “Rambo: First Blood Part II.” What? "First Blood Part II," what were you thinking? I understand where they were headed, but this is just not well-thought-out.
So just remember, “Rambo: First Blood Part II” is a sequel to “First Blood” which is the original Rambo movie, but isn’t actually called Rambo, but the sequel is called “Rambo,” but with the secondary title of “First Blood,” but also a “Part II” because it’s a sequel. Not to be confused with “Rambo III” or the last film “Rambo.” Got it? Good.
I’m not sure “The Haunting in Connecticut” really needed a sequel, but we got it anyway. There isn’t a lot to say about this one, it’s pretty clear. The first film took place in Connecticut because there was a haunting there. So for the sequel the only logical thing to do is move it to Georgia but still call it “The Haunting in Connecticut.” Then, they realized this doesn’t make sense because it takes place in Georgia. So what do we do now? Add the subtitle “Ghosts of Georgia.” Then you put it on a poster and realize how silly it looks.
This was not well-thought-out.
The '90s were all about action films like “The Rock,” “Broken Arrow” and “Cliffhanger.” One of the films in this decade of over-the-top action flicks is “Face/Off.”
Some may think this title is clever with its double meaning, but to me it’s like a 14-year-old thought of this with his buddies during a sleepover:
Idea Kid: “Dude, it’s like you take his face off and the good guy and bad guy actually face off.”
Idea Kid’s Friend: “Duuuude.” *slow claps his friend’s brilliance*
Idea Kid: “I know.” *takes a bite of another Totino’s Pizza Roll*
I just don’t like this title. Not great.
Sequels don’t always have the best track record with titles. We’ve already given you two examples in this article, and you can have more proof with the “Die Hard” sequels, but the “Chipmunks” sequels really take the cake.
You’ve got “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakwell,” and “Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked,” but both of these pale in comparison to “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip.”
Do I really need to say anything here? These unpunny titles have got to stop, but when it comes to puns, it’s never ending. Before we know it, we’re going to be enjoying “Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chip Off the Old Block,” “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Las Vegas Chip,” “Alvin and the Chipmunks: With Nuts and Chip Cream,” or “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The A-Chipen-Dectomy.” (That’s when Alvin has appendicitis.)
There you have it, five of the worst movie titles. Tell us in the comments what titles you would have included.
Here are some honorable mentions that didn’t make the list.
John has been writing about movies, news, sports and pretty much anything awesome for more than five years. John is the co-host of the Flix Junkies podcast and will always entertain you with his stories.