Incorrect title?

I get what you're saying. However, from a technical standpoint, people are themselves not actually reincarnated, so the point is moot anyway. But even excluding that, I believe there is a subtle distiction here, and it has as much to do with the prepostional phrase OF PETER PROUD as with the logical relationship of reincarnation and who is and isn't. First, it is not incorrect to refer to Peter Proud as being reincarnated because he has "inherited" the "soul" of Jeff Curtis. Hence, in a grammatical sense, he IS the object of the "action", i.e. reincarnation. Second, (fictionally) both Jeff Curtis and Peter Proud were both reincarnated as "donor" and "recipient." LOL It is a shared transaction. Think of it more like "transformation." Also, I gotta say that the author probably understood the topic pretty thoroughly. After all, he devoted himself to writing about the topic, then got published, AND then had a movie made. Some pretty smart people must have been clueless if your premise is correct. It is being kind to say that is is nitpiking to even point it out.

Also, obviously, the title was picked for a very specific reason. Your "CORRECTED" title, even assuming you're right, which you clearly aren't, clearly loses the somewhat morally self-referential and suggestive thematic nature of the original title. Choosing movie titles can itself be an art form, and when done correctly can encapsulate the thematic elements of said movie. As an aside, one of my more recent favorites is NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN...now there's a great title (even though, like THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD, it was taken from the title of the book it was based on).

So anyway, better time spent on the movie's qualities than wondering whether the title concept is mistaken! SORRY FOR THE LENGTHY REPLY, but often simple questions require detailed answers to correct basic misconceptions. LOL :-) NEXT!!!

That's always stuck in my craw as well. How does one remove something from one's craw, anyway?