It's just that I'm not sure I could get such a concept past a rather literal-minded editor, and I also didn't attempt to describe every major aspect of the film. Finally, I have to say I was disappointed with William Wees's reply on the title question. Indeed, I have found a bad one in the Chambers review as first posted, an incorrect reference to the journal that one of Chambers's articles appeared in, which I have since caught and corrected on my own on my Web site. Look, I agree that there's room for ambiguity in some cases with titles. Since the title doesn't always appear on the film, we can't necessarily assume that the first word we see is the title.
Filmmakers shorten their titles all the time in correspondence and speech.
But we don't have anything like that, and it seems unlikely that Chambers would do such a thing.