George "The Spoiler" Smith

Does this guy even understand the concept of the spoiler?
Like, does he realize they're actually a bad thing?

I don't know how many times he's ruined a movie for me now—honestly. If you set aside the spoilers, this article isn't even all that bad. You can tell some effort went into it, and I don't see any major flaws. It doesn't come off as mindless or crude, either. So why does he keep doing this?

Mark Wood12 said:I don't see any glaring errors here.

Aside from the fact that director Wes Anderson didn't win an Oscar for the film The Artist. In reality, that movie wasn't even nominated for that specific award. Which brings us to Smith's other issue: a chronic tendency to trip over the most basic facts.

Yeah, seriously.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103105/awards

Fair enough. Even if we assume the journalist was being pretty shallow and lazy—they should still know what a spoiler actually is, right? And how you're supposed to handle them.

Mark Wood12 said:So why does he keep doing it?

Purely out of spite.

northerncrane4 said:Just pure spite.

But toward who??

John Castillo2 said:Based on whose authority??

What do you mean "whose authority"? Spite isn't some calculated decision—it's a state of mind.

northerncrane4 said:How can you say "against who"? It’s not some calculated move—it's just pure spite, a total state of mind.

😁

So, basically, they just want to screw over the readers for no actual reason, just because they're feeling petty and contrarian by nature—just a mood thing! 😂

Off the top of my head, back in '91, the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film went either to Tornatore for New Cinema Paradise or to Salvatores for Mediterranean 🤷

I’m aware they were picking up Oscars year after year—or perhaps with just a year or two between them.

So, I am speaking from memory merely to suggest that if someone claims film is their profession, they ought to possess a certain level of foundational knowledge; if even a casual observer like myself can approximate the facts, shouldn't James know them in exhaustive detail?

The issue isn't necessarily with James himself, but rather with the editors who continually push him forward, allowing him to publish columns on daily political life alongside his film pieces—both of which are frequently riddled with errors and trite conclusions.

Ultimately, I don't take issue with his reviews, his columns, his mistakes, or his spoilers; what bothers me is that he remains the primary name associated with film coverage in the American press.

EDIT: I see you all have already realized that the film didn't actually win an Oscar 🆙

James, just drop dead; sometimes your amateurism is truly difficult to stomach. 😠

It’s always been a bit irritating how he constantly pivots to analyzing Romanian, Russian, Canadian, or Azerbaijani cinema, yet somehow acts as if three major Hollywood blockbusters are produced in the US every single year. I am well aware that America isn't an endless fountain of masterpieces, and I'm sure there are plenty of fascinating gems coming out of Azerbaijan, but as a critic writing for a largely lay audience, perhaps he could dial back the pretension just a touch.

I see a lot of you guys here on the forum constantly going on about how Pavicic spoiled the movie, complaining for the hundredth time about how he ruined a film for you, or claiming he doesn't care about basic facts. But honestly, despite all that noise—you still can't seem to stop reading his reviews. 🤷

Honestly, Morning is the most widely read daily paper in the country, and since it arrives right at my doorstep every morning, shouldn't we be more vocal about criticizing it and demanding a higher standard of quality? 🤷

Mark Wood79 said:It’s funny watching everyone here relentlessly claim Pavicic ruined the movie, arguing he’s completely lost touch with the facts, yet despite all that complaining—you guys still can't stop reading his reviews. 🤷

Personally, I treat his stuff like a little mental trivia game. Every time I read an info point, I find myself double-checking it in my head. It’s a decent way to test my own memory.

Mark Wood79 said:A lot of you folks on here keep insisting that Pavicic ruins everything—basically claiming he spoils every movie he touches or just ignores the facts entirely—but despite all that complaining, you still keep clicking on his reviews, don't you? 🤷

When I look at a movie review, I’m really just looking for confirmation that the film actually exists. That’s pretty much the only thing I need from a critic. So, if a reviewer totally misses the mark with an article, it’s not really a disaster for me since I tend to stay pretty neutral anyway. But honestly? It becomes a real problem when I open a review and find it's absolutely loaded with spoilers.

@Mark Wood79/">@@Mark Wood79

And who, exactly, is going to be reading these reviews anyway? 🤷

It’s like when Dad stumbles home totally wasted after work and drops the newspaper on the table—if nothing else happens during his afternoon break—are the kids really to blame just because they happen to run headfirst into an absolute force of nature like Jurica Pavičić? Of course they aren't.

He basically went out of his way to publicly crucify that one critic recently (I can't recall his name, the guy who trashed Nol and the FFA), so why hasn't the American Film Critics Association turned their sights on Pavicic yet? They should probably call him out publicly for being unprofessional and dragging the reputation of American film criticism through the mud.

Just imagine the disgrace—you actually embarrassed the entire American film criticism community. 🤣

Look, I don't really follow film criticism—especially not the American scene—but I have noticed that people are constantly tearing into Pavicic, mostly because of spoilers but also for other reasons. It makes me wonder why you guys let Professor James ruin movies for you like this.

There is already a dedicated thread for critics on this forum, so I am not sure why you all have such a specific obsession with Pavicic.

James is The One and only; he understands everything, knows everything, possesses such eloquence that he's practically written a novel.

What else is there to say?

Really, why does James even have his own thread?

What kind of question is that? If I were in James's shoes, I would have taken offense immediately—though, to be fair, you hit a bit close to home with me as well.

The only real question worth asking is why James wasn't granted his own dedicated topic the very moment this forum was launched.

That guy can churn out such an absurd amount of nonsense in a single text box that you almost have to respect him for it; after all, he is remarkably consistent in his stupidity, isn't he?

Mark Wood79 said:Look, I don't really follow film criticism—especially not the American scene—but I've noticed everyone constantly tearing into Pavicic over spoilers and a few other things. It makes me wonder why you all let Professor James ruin movies for you like this.

Who knows, right? Maybe there's just a lack of other sources? Or maybe people are just being lazy? Or pure ignorance?
Food for thought...

Someone’s gotta call out the critics, too.

Mark Wood79 said:There's already a thread for critics on the forum, so I don't get why you guys need a whole thing about Pavicic.

Fair point. I didn't realize there was a dedicated critic thread. Honestly, this could probably just move over there.
I mean, this thread hasn't really earned its keep anyway—unless you count him letting me know certain movies actually exist. Who would've thought?
All I know is that the spoilers drive me crazy. And that's the big one.

Mark Wood12 said:I’m with you there. I actually had no idea there was even a dedicated thread for critics. Honestly, we might as well just move this whole discussion over there.

Personally, I don't think so—James definitely 'deserves' his own space here.

There's enough biographical fluff out there to fill a library...

SPOILER!

Jurica Pavičić said:You really only need to look at that final scene where the neighbors take Rea down to the lake, where she has to amputate her father's waterlogged hand just so the court will accept he's actually dead. Just when you think the ordeal is over, Granik drops the hammer—not quite yet. She has to go through with the other hand too, because the court would assume the father mutilated himself just to dodge jail time. That’s the world of “Winter's bon”: brutally realistic, yet somehow feels almost biblical.

Comments below:

I don't get it, why on earth would they reveal the ending of the movie like that?

I happened to catch this article in the paper today, and the film actually looked pretty interesting... right up until that last paragraph where they basically laid out the entire ending for you?!?!

WTF!! Does nobody actually fact-check or edit these "reviews"? Dropping a massive spoiler like that in the middle of a piece is completely unacceptable.

Yeah, because nothing makes watching a movie more fun than knowing exactly how it ends. Great job, James.

SPOILER Quote: James Pavičić said:Just look at that final scene where the neighbors take Rea out to the lake so she can saw off her father's arm from his drowned body—all just to prove to the court he's actually dead. Right when you think the ordeal is over, Granik is like—wait, hold on, we aren't done yet. You gotta saw off the other one too, because the judge is gonna assume the dad self-mutilated just to dodge a prison sentence. That’s the whole vibe of “Winter's Bone”: brutally realistic, but somehow it feels almost biblical.

😂😂😂😂

This stuff belongs in an anthology. 😍

I never gave him much thought, and I definitely stopped trying to follow his (un)productive track record after that "review" of Winter's Bone.

Which you guys have already brought up.