Advertise on podcast: Movie of the Year

Movie of the Year: 2006The Finale, Part 1Inside the 2006 Film Finale PodcastThe 2006 film finale podcast begins here, as Movie of the Year starts crowning the best film of 2006. Ryan, Mike, and Greg, better known as the Taste Buds, have spent months inside this bracket. Now the head-to-head battles finally begin. Part I covers four battles. Eight beloved films enter, and only four will move on. Furthermore, the Taste Buds hand out two acting awards along the way: Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. This is the payoff for an entire season of debate. Every guest, game, and argument has led to this point. However, nothing is settled yet. You will have to listen to find out which movies of 2006 survive. About the 2006 FinaleMovie of the Year is a bracket-style film podcast on the PopFilter network. Each season, the Taste Buds pick one film year and search for its single best movie. The 2006 season started with a field of 128 films. The 2006 season intro cut that list in half. Then the Sweet 16 reveal locked in the bracket. Since then, each contender has earned its own full episode. Some featured guest critics and fellow podcasters. Others brought special segments, drafts, and games. Meanwhile, the panel took detours for the 2006 Mixtape and the Action Figure Draft. The finale works differently. Instead of studying one film, the Taste Buds weigh films against each other. As a result, every argument becomes a comparison. Can a horror comedy beat a Best Picture winner? Can a satire outlast a war epic? For a refresher on the year itself, Wikipedia's overview of 2006 in film covers the major releases. Four Battles, Eight Films: The 2006 Finale Podcast FieldThis round features some of the most celebrated movies of 2006. Notably, the field mixes Oscar winners, cult favorites, and box office surprises. Here are the eight films fighting for a spot in the next round. The HeavyweightsThe Departed brought Martin Scorsese his long-awaited Oscar for Best Director. The Boston crime epic also won Best Picture. Roger Ebert gave it a four-star review. Letters from Iwo Jima offers Clint Eastwood's Japanese-language look at World War II. Additionally, Dreamgirls delivers Bill Condon's lavish Motown-inspired musical. The Crowd PleasersLittle Miss Sunshine packed the Hoover family into a yellow VW bus and became an indie smash. Meanwhile, Borat turned Sacha Baron Cohen's mockumentary stunts into a cultural earthquake. Stranger Than Fiction showed a quieter, sadder side of Will Ferrell. The Wild CardsVolver brings Pedro Almodóvar's warm ghost story and a towering Penélope Cruz performance. By contrast, Slither marks James Gunn's gooey, gleeful directorial debut. Few brackets would ever put these films side by side. Ultimately, that clash is exactly what makes the finale fun. Best Supporting Actor of 2006The first award of the finale honors the best supporting actor of 2006. The year offered plenty of scene stealers. In fact, several of them appear in this very round. The Academy had its own opinion, of course. At the 79th Academy Awards, Alan Arkin won for Little Miss Sunshine. He beat Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls and Mark Wahlberg in The Departed. Jackie Earle Haley and Djimon Hounsou rounded out the category. However, the Taste Buds do not answer to the Academy. Their nominees reflect a full season of rewatching and arguing. Will they side with Oscar, or will they reward a performance the voters ignored? The answer arrives in the episode. Best Supporting Actress of 2006Next, the panel turns to the best supporting actress of 2006. This category brings some of the year's most memorable moments. Jennifer Hudson took home the Oscar for her film debut in Dreamgirls. Her rendition of "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" stopped audiences cold. Moreover, the Academy's field included Abigail Breslin from Little Miss Sunshine. Adriana Barraza and Rinko Kikuchi earned nods for Babel, and Cate Blanchett for Notes on a Scandal. Still, the Movie of the Year ballot looks at the entire year. Consequently, the Taste Buds' choice could look very different. Listen to hear who takes home the award. Why the 2006 Film Finale Podcast Still MattersTwenty years later, 2006 looks stronger than critics first believed. Several of these films launched careers that still shape Hollywood. James Gunn now runs DC Studios. Additionally, Jennifer Hudson became an EGOT winner and a daytime talk show host. Other films aged in more complicated ways. Borat reshaped political comedy, for better or worse. Meanwhile, Letters from Iwo Jima still stands as a rare American war film told from the other side. That is why this 2006 film finale podcast matters. The bracket forces a simple question: which of these movies still holds up today? Therefore, every vote becomes an argument about memory, taste, and time. Above all, the finale shows how a film year changes once two decades pass. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movies of 2006: Intro Part 12006: The Sweet 16 RevealedTristram Shandy: A C**k and Bull StorySlitherBrick2006 Mixtape, Part I2006 Mixtape, Part IIThe Puffy ChairThe Devil Wears Prada (feat. Katie Walsh)Little Miss SunshineThe Prestige (feat. Kenny McMillan)BoratVolverThe Action Figure Draft, Part IThe Action Figure Draft, Part IIStranger Than FictionCasino RoyaleChildren of MenThe Departed (feat. Adam Kempenaar)Letters from Iwo JimaDreamgirlsAll Movie of the Year Episodes FAQ: 2006 Film Finale Podcast and the FilmsWhat is the 2006 film finale podcast about? Part I opens the...

This week's Dreamgirls podcast brings Bill Condon's 2006 Motown musical into the Movie of the Year bracket. Ryan, Mike, and Greg, better known as the Taste Buds, welcome two guests for this one. E, host of The Cinematic Soul, joins the panel alongside author and podcaster Nate Ragolia. Together, they dig into one of the biggest musicals of the decade. Dreamgirls arrived with enormous expectations. It had a star-studded cast, a Tony-winning source, and a massive awards campaign. Moreover, it introduced the world to Jennifer Hudson as a screen actor. The panel asks whether the film lives up to all that hype twenty years later. Additionally, they debate where it belongs among the best films of 2006. About the FilmDreamgirls is a 2006 musical drama written and directed by Bill Condon. It adapts the 1981 Broadway musical by composer Henry Krieger and lyricist Tom Eyen. DreamWorks and Paramount released it nationwide on December 25, 2006. The story begins in 1962 Detroit. Effie White, Deena Jones, and Lorrell Robinson perform as a girl group called the Dreamettes. Car salesman Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx) spots them at a talent show and becomes their manager. Soon, he lands them a gig singing backup for R&B star James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy). As the group climbs toward pop stardom, Curtis pushes the slimmer Deena (Beyoncé Knowles) to the front. Consequently, Effie (Jennifer Hudson) loses her spot, her man, and eventually her place in the group. The cast also features Danny Glover, Anika Noni Rose, and Keith Robinson. You can find full credits on IMDb and the AFI Catalog. Notably, the film grossed $155.4 million worldwide and earned eight Academy Award nominations. For more from this season, start with our 2006 season intro or browse the full Movie of the Year archive. Guest Panelist: EE hosts The Cinematic Soul, a weekly film history podcast about Black cinema and storytelling. A film lover from the South Side of Chicago, E blends deep analysis with humor and a healthy dose of nostalgia. The show has covered classics like Love & Basketball, Eve's Bayou, Boomerang, and Claudine. Furthermore, E has broken down newer work, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners. Each episode looks at how these films reflect Black life, love, and legacy. That perspective makes E an ideal guide to a film rooted in Motown history. You can follow the show on Instagram and Threads at @cinematicsoulpod. Guest Panelist: Nate RagoliaNate Ragolia is an author, editor, publisher, and podcaster based in Colorado. He has published three books: There You Feel Free (2015), The Retroactivist (2019), and One Person Can't Make a Difference (2022). In addition, he co-founded the indie press Spaceboy Books. At the literary nonprofit F(r)iction, he serves as a senior editor and leads communications and marketing. Meanwhile, Nate co-hosts Debut Buddies with Kelly Attaway and Chelsea Hollander. The fortnightly show explores firsts: first films, first albums, first video games, and more. Fittingly, Dreamgirls marks one of the most famous film debuts of the 2000s. Nate brings a sharp eye for origin stories to the conversation. Jennifer Hudson and the Making of Effie WhiteEffie White is the emotional center of Dreamgirls. Therefore, the casting process for the role was intense. A total of 783 singers auditioned, including several American Idol alumni and Broadway stars. Ultimately, Condon chose Jennifer Hudson, a former Idol contestant with no film experience. Her big moment comes with "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going." The production saved the number for the very end of the shoot. Originally, it was scheduled for one day. In practice, it took four, because Hudson's voice would give out after hours of full-power takes. The payoff was historic. Hudson won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her debut performance. However, the panel also wrestles with a thornier question. The studio campaigned Hudson as a supporting player while promoting Beyoncé for Best Actress. As a result, the awards push echoed the film's own story about who gets pushed to the front. Motown, the Supremes, and the Story Behind DreamgirlsDreamgirls never names the Supremes or Motown. Nevertheless, the parallels are hard to miss. Deena mirrors Diana Ross, while Effie draws on Florence Ballard. Curtis Taylor Jr. stands in for Motown founder Berry Gordy. Likewise, Jimmy Early channels James Brown, Jackie Wilson, and Marvin Gaye. The film leans further into this history than the stage show did. For example, Condon moved the setting from Chicago to Detroit, Motown's hometown. He also gave Curtis his own record label, Rainbow Records, modeled on Motown. Even some album covers in the film borrow designs from real Supremes records. Not everyone appreciated the homage. Smokey Robinson publicly objected to the villainous portrayal of the Gordy figure. Consequently, DreamWorks and Paramount issued an apology to Gordy just before the Oscars. By contrast, Supremes co-founder Mary Wilson attended the Los Angeles premiere and said the film moved her to tears. The Dreamgirls podcast panel weighs how much of this real history the film actually earns. From Broadway to the Big ScreenDreamgirls spent decades in development. In the late 1980s, David Geffen explored a version starring Whitney Houston. Later, Warner Bros. planned an adaptation with director Joel Schumacher. Neither project made it to production. The success of Chicago in 2002 finally opened the door. Condon had written that film's screenplay, and Dreamgirls was a longtime dream project. Specifically, he restructured the second act and added four new songs, including "Listen" for Beyoncé. Additionally, DreamWorks gave the film an old-fashioned roadshow release with reserved seats and souvenir programs. Despite all that effort, the Academy left it out of the Best Picture race. Remarkably, it became the first film to lead the year in Oscar nominations without a Best Picture nod. Our 2006 Dreamgirls podcast panel debates whether that snub was fair. Rushmore: GhostbustersThis episode also features a Rushmore segment, where each panelist carves four faces into the mountain. This time, the topic is Ghostbusters. Everyone makes their picks, defends them, and takes some heat from the rest of the table. Listen in to hear who makes the cut and who gets slimed. Dreamgirls TriviaNext, the panel puts its knowledge to the test with a round of Dreamgirls trivia. The questions cover the cast, the music, and the long road from Broadway to Hollywood. Above all, this segment rewards anyone who stayed through the end credits. Play along at home and see how your score compares to the Taste Buds and their guests. Why Dreamgirls Still MattersDreamgirls still matters because it put Black artistry and Black music history at the center of a major studio musical. With a budget near $80 million, it ranked among the most expensive films ever made with a predominantly Black cast. Furthermore, it launched Jennifer Hudson into a career that now includes an Oscar, Grammys, and her own talk show. The film also asks hard questions about the music business. Who gets to be the face of a hit? What does crossover success cost the artists who make it possible? Those questions feel just as relevant today. Ultimately, Dreamgirls endures because its biggest musical moments still bring audiences to their feet. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year: 2006 Intro, Part 1Movies of 2006: The Bracket RevealThe 2006 Mixtape, Part IAll Movie of the Year Episodes FAQ: Dreamgirls Podcast and FilmWhat is this Dreamgirls podcast episode about?This Movie of the Year episode covers Dreamgirls (2006) as part of PopFilter's 2006 bracket. Hosts Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome guests E of The Cinematic Soul and Nate Ragolia of Debut Buddies. The episode also includes a Ghostbusters Rushmore segment and a round of Dreamgirls trivia. What is Dreamgirls (2006) about?Dreamgirls follows a Detroit girl group called the Dreamettes from 1962 into the 1970s. Their manager, Curtis Taylor Jr., turns them into pop stars but replaces lead singer Effie White with Deena Jones. The film tracks the fame, betrayal, and reconciliation that follow. Who directed Dreamgirls?Bill Condon wrote and directed Dreamgirls. He previously wrote the screenplay for Chicago (2002) and directed Gods and Monsters and Kinsey. Is Dreamgirls based on a true story?Dreamgirls is fiction, but it draws heavily on the history of Motown and the Supremes. Deena echoes...

Movie of the Year: 2006Pan's LabyrinthThe Pan's Labyrinth Podcast from Movie of the YearThe Pan's Labyrinth podcast episode of Movie of the Year steps into Guillermo del Toro's darkest fairy tale. Ryan, Mike, and Greg take on the 2006 Spanish-language fantasy this week. The film follows a young girl caught between a brutal war and a hidden magical world. Furthermore, it remains one of the most celebrated films of its decade. This week, the Taste Buds explore how del Toro blends fascism and fantasy. Next, they tour his gallery of unforgettable monsters. Meanwhile, they size up Captain Vidal, the very human villain at the center of the story. Additionally, the panel recasts the movie and casts a PopFilter Hall of Fame vote. Notably, this entry in the 2006 bracket shares the year with heavyweights like Children of Men and The Departed. About Pan's Labyrinth (2006)Pan's Labyrinth is a 2006 dark fantasy film written and directed by Guillermo del Toro. Its original Spanish title is El laberinto del fauno. The story takes place in 1944, five years after the Spanish Civil War ended. Ivana Baquero stars as Ofelia, a bookish girl who loves fairy tales. She travels with her pregnant mother, Carmen, to a remote military outpost. There, her new stepfather, Captain Vidal, hunts rebels hiding in the mountains. Near the old mill, Ofelia discovers an ancient stone labyrinth. Inside, a mysterious faun tells her she is a lost princess. However, she must complete three dangerous tasks to return to her kingdom. Sergi López, Maribel Verdú, Ariadna Gil, and Álex Angulo round out the cast. Doug Jones plays both the Faun and the Pale Man under heavy prosthetics. The film premiered in competition at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival. As a result, it built strong buzz before its US release that December. Moreover, it won three Academy Awards for Cinematography, Art Direction, and Makeup. Critics embraced it as well. Jim Emerson ranked it among the great screen fantasies in his RogerEbert.com review. Roger Ebert later named it the best film of 2006. You can find the full cast and crew on IMDb. Fascistic Fantasy: How the Pan's Labyrinth Podcast Reads Franco's SpainPan's Labyrinth opens in the shadow of Franco's victory. Small bands of rebels still fight from the hills. Meanwhile, Vidal's outpost controls the food, the medicine, and the roads. Del Toro places a fairy tale inside that machinery of control. As a result, the fantasy never feels like a simple escape. Instead, both worlds test the same question. Will Ofelia obey? The Taste Buds trace how disobedience drives the entire film. Dr. Ferreiro defies Vidal and tells him that blind obedience belongs to men like him. Mercedes secretly smuggles supplies to the rebels. Similarly, Ofelia breaks the Faun's rules more than once. Each act carries a cost, yet each one marks a character as free. In this Pan's Labyrinth podcast segment, the panel weighs how directly del Toro links fairy tales and fascism. Notably, he first explored the Spanish Civil War in The Devil's Backbone (2001). Furthermore, we ask whether the film's fantasy offers hope or only grief. Ultimately, del Toro suggests that imagination itself can resist tyranny. Del Toro's Monsters: A Pan's Labyrinth 2006 Podcast Creature FeatureFew filmmakers love monsters like Guillermo del Toro. His career runs from Cronos and Hellboy to The Shape of Water and Frankenstein. However, Pan's Labyrinth may hold his most famous creations. First comes the Faun, a towering guide built from bark, horn, and moss. He helps Ofelia, yet he never feels fully trustworthy. Then comes the giant toad that chokes the roots of an old fig tree. Above all, the Taste Buds dig into the Pale Man. He appears during Ofelia's second task and stays on screen for only a few minutes. Nevertheless, those minutes have fueled nightmares for twenty years. The Pale Man sits motionless before a lavish feast, with his eyes resting on a plate. Once he wakes, he slots those eyes into the palms of his hands. Then he lurches after Ofelia through the hall. Doug Jones reportedly saw through the creature's nostrils during filming. Consequently, every step carries real uncertainty. Moreover, the feast mirrors Vidal's own dinner party in the real world. In both scenes, powerful men gorge while others go hungry. The panel asks what the Pale Man truly represents. Is he fascism, the church, or simple childhood fear? Captain Vidal: The Human Monster of Pan's LabyrinthIf the Pale Man embodies fear, Captain Vidal embodies cruelty. Sergi López plays the Francoist officer with chilling precision. He shaves with a straight razor, polishes his boots, and obsesses over his father's pocket watch. Everything in his world must run on time. As a result, his calm surface makes his violence even more shocking. The Taste Buds revisit the scene that defines him. Early on, soldiers drag in a farmer and his son. The men claim they were only hunting rabbits. Without waiting for proof, Vidal beats the son to death with a bottle. Then he shoots the father. Afterward, a search of their bag turns up dead rabbits. By contrast, Vidal shows no remorse at all. The panel also examines his obsession with legacy. According to legend, Vidal's father smashed his watch at the moment he died in battle. That way, his son would know the exact hour a brave man fell. Vidal denies the story, yet he carries the watch everywhere. Later, Mercedes slashes his face, and he stitches the wound himself. In practice, Vidal wants to control even his own memory. Above all, his final moments deliver one of the most satisfying rebukes in 2006 cinema. Recast: Rebuilding the Pan's Labyrinth Podcast Cast ListNext, the Taste Buds play a round of Recast. Each host rebuilds the cast of Pan's Labyrinth from scratch. The challenge sounds simple, but this film makes it tricky. Notably, del Toro cast mostly Spanish actors in a Spanish-language story. Therefore, every pick forces the panel to weigh authenticity against star power. Who could match Sergi López's icy menace as Vidal? Furthermore, who could carry the film the way Ivana Baquero does as Ofelia? Doug Jones presents an even bigger puzzle. His work as the Faun and the Pale Man draws on decades of creature performance. In practice, few actors could step into those prosthetics. Listen to the episode to hear each Taste Bud's dream lineup and the debate that follows. PopFilter Hall of FameFinally, the PopFilter Hall of Fame doors swing open once again. In this segment, the Taste Buds debate a new nominee and decide whether it earns a permanent spot. Pan's Labyrinth gives the panel plenty to consider. The film earned six Oscar nominations and won three. Moreover, fans still rank it among the best fantasy films ever made. However, the Hall of Fame bar sits high, and the panel takes the vote seriously. Each host makes a case before casting a ballot. Tune in to hear the verdict. Why Pan's Labyrinth Still MattersPan's Labyrinth still matters because it treats fairy tales as serious tools for resistance. Ofelia's final choice rejects blind obedience in both worlds. Consequently, the film's fantasy and history speak the same language. Additionally, the movie proved that a Spanish-language genre film could win over global audiences. It earned more than $80 million worldwide on a budget of roughly $19 million. Moreover, it paved the way for del Toro's Best Picture win with The Shape of Water. The film also anchors a remarkable year for Mexican filmmakers. Alfonso Cuarón released Children of Men in 2006. Meanwhile, Alejandro González Iñárritu released Babel that same year. Together, the three friends reshaped Hollywood's idea of genre and prestige. Ultimately, the Pan's Labyrinth podcast conversation returns to one idea. Twenty years later, Ofelia's quiet defiance still feels urgent. For more debates like this, browse the full Movie of the Year archive. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006If you enjoyed this episode, catch up on the rest of the 2006 season. Letters From Iwo JimaThe Departed (feat. Adam Kempenaar)Children of MenCasino RoyaleStranger Than Fictiona...

The Letters from Iwo Jima Podcast Enters the 2006 BracketWelcome to the Letters from Iwo Jima podcast episode from Movie of the Year: 2006. This week, Ryan, Mike, and Greg take on Clint Eastwood's Japanese-language war film. The movie tells the story of the Battle of Iwo Jima from the side that lost it. Moreover, it arrived just two months after Eastwood's own Flags of Our Fathers, which showed the same fight through American eyes. As a result, the Taste Buds have plenty to unpack. Specifically, they debate the general who planned the defense, the baker who tried to survive it, and the American filmmaker who brought both to the screen. They also explore the real letters that gave the film its title. Notably, the season has already featured heavy hitters like Almodóvar's Volver and Little Miss Sunshine. Therefore, this war epic faces stiff competition. Can a quiet, grief-soaked combat film earn a deep run in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket? About the FilmLetters from Iwo Jima premiered in Japan on December 9, 2006. Warner Bros. then opened it in limited U.S. release on December 20 to qualify for the Oscars. Iris Yamashita wrote the screenplay from a story she developed with Paul Haggis. Meanwhile, Steven Spielberg co-produced alongside Eastwood and Robert Lorenz. The story opens in 2005, when Japanese archaeologists explore the island's tunnels and find something buried. From there, the film jumps back to 1944. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi arrives to command a doomed garrison. He orders his men to stop digging beach trenches and to tunnel into the mountains instead. Consequently, the Marines who land on the island face a hidden, underground enemy. The film earned four Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director. Ultimately, it won the Oscar for Best Sound Editing. It also took the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film. For the full production history, visit the film's Wikipedia page or its IMDb listing. Kuribayashi and Saigo on the Letters from Iwo Jima PodcastKen Watanabe plays Kuribayashi with calm, weary authority. The real general spent time in the United States as a young officer in the late 1920s. As a result, he knew exactly how much industrial power Japan was up against. The film treats that knowledge as quiet tragedy. Kuribayashi fights a battle he expects to lose, and he fights it smartly anyway. Saigo gives the film its ground-level view. Kazunari Ninomiya, a member of the Japanese pop group Arashi, plays the conscripted baker. Saigo misses his wife and his shop. Furthermore, he openly grumbles about the island, which nearly earns him a beating. Unlike Kuribayashi, Saigo is a fictional character. However, he stands in for every ordinary soldier who never chose this war. On the Letters from Iwo Jima podcast, the Taste Buds dig into how these two men mirror each other. Kuribayashi saves Saigo's life more than once. In return, Saigo carries out the general's final request. Additionally, the panel discusses Baron Nishi, played by Tsuyoshi Ihara. Nishi was a real Olympic gold medalist in show jumping. His scenes with a wounded Marine give the film one of its most humane moments. By contrast, officers like Lieutenant Ito cling to the suicidal code Kuribayashi rejects. The film lets these philosophies collide inside the caves. In practice, honor itself becomes the real battleground. An American Director Tells a Japanese StoryClint Eastwood built his legend as the Man with No Name and Dirty Harry. So how did that icon end up directing a film almost entirely in Japanese? The Taste Buds wrestle with that question directly. Eastwood shot the movie back to back with Flags of Our Fathers. Most of the production took place in Barstow and Bakersfield, California. Additionally, Ken Watanabe filmed some scenes on Iwo Jima itself. The crew needed special permission from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government to work there. The island still holds the remains of more than 10,000 missing Japanese soldiers. In Japan, the film became a major hit and spent five weeks at number one. Notably, Japanese critics praised its use of native Japanese actors. Earlier Hollywood films often cast non-Japanese performers in Japanese roles. Consequently, those films often sounded wrong to Japanese audiences. Eastwood's film avoided that trap. Still, the panel asks harder questions too. Can an American filmmaker fully grasp the Japanese experience of this war? Moreover, does the film soften the realities of imperial Japan? Aaron Gerow's essay on Eastwood's balancing of perspectives offers useful context. Meanwhile, Jim Emerson's review at RogerEbert.com captures the film's stark visual power. Listen to hear where each Taste Bud lands. The Actual Letters Behind the Letters from Iwo Jima 2006 PodcastThe title is literal. The film draws on Picture Letters from the Commander in Chief, a collection of Kuribayashi's real correspondence. Tsuyuko Yoshida edited the volume, and Shogakukan published it in Japan in 2002. The production also drew on Kumiko Kakehashi's book So Sad to Fall in Battle, which reached English readers in 2007. Kuribayashi wrote home often. As the collection's title suggests, many of his letters included his own small drawings. Furthermore, his messages from the island dwelt on ordinary family matters rather than glory. That gentle voice shaped Watanabe's performance. The Taste Buds explore how the film turns these documents into its emotional spine. Soldiers read letters aloud in the dark. Others write letters they will never send. Additionally, a letter from an American mother changes how Nishi's men see their enemy. Ultimately, the buried bag from the 2005 prologue pays off in the final scene, and the dead finally speak. For listeners who want more of the season, the 2006 season intro explains how the Taste Buds built this year's field. Genre Blast: The War MovieIn Genre Blast, the Taste Buds step back and look at a film's genre as a whole. This week, that means the war movie. Letters from Iwo Jima sits in a long line of World War II combat films. Specifically, it arrived eight years after Saving Private Ryan reset the genre's standard for battlefield violence. However, Eastwood takes a different approach. Cinematographer Tom Stern drains most of the color from the image. Much of the action also stays inside cramped tunnels. As a result, the film often feels closer to a chamber drama than a combat spectacle. Tune in to hear how the panel sizes it up against the genre's greats. Why Letters from Iwo Jima Still MattersTwo decades later, Letters from Iwo Jima still stands apart. Few Hollywood war films tell their story entirely from the enemy's side. Moreover, few manage it with this much respect. The National Board of Review named it the best film of 2006. Critics have kept returning to it ever since. The film also remains a high point of Eastwood's late career. Above all, it asks a question that never ages. What does a soldier owe his country, and what does he owe his family? That question makes it ideal bracket material for Movie of the Year: 2006. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1The Movies of 2006 Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape Part IVolver Podcast: Movie of the Year 2006Little Miss Sunshine Podcast: Movie of the Year 2006Browse Every Movie of the Year Episode FAQ: Letters from Iwo Jima Podcast and FilmWhat is the Letters from Iwo Jima podcast episode about? In this episode, Ryan, Mike, and Greg debate Clint Eastwood's 2006 war film for the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. They discuss Kuribayashi and Saigo, Eastwood's approach as an American director, and the real letters behind the story. The episode also includes a Genre Blast segment on war movies. What is Letters from Iwo Jima about? The film depicts the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective. General Kuribayashi leads a doomed garrison against an American invasion. Meanwhile, a young baker named Saigo simply tries to survive and return to his family. Who directed Letters from Iwo Jima? Clint...

Movie of the Year: 2006The Departed (feat Adam Kempenaar!)Inside The Departed Podcast EpisodeWelcome to The Departed podcast episode of Movie of the Year: 2006, where the Taste Buds take on Martin Scorsese's Boston crime epic. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome Filmspotting co-host Adam Kempenaar to the panel. Together, they dig into a film about cops, crooks, and the men who raise them. Moreover, the conversation covers fatherhood, gender, and the rough racial politics of Scorsese's South Boston. Additionally, the crew delivers a Career Retrospective on Leonardo DiCaprio, the jittery star at the film's center. Ultimately, the episode asks whether this Best Picture winner still earns its reputation twenty years later. New to the season? Start with our Movie of the Year 2006 intro episode, then catch up on the full 2006 bracket reveal. About the Film: The Departed (2006)The Departed opened in theaters on October 6, 2006. Martin Scorsese directed, and William Monahan wrote the screenplay. Specifically, Monahan adapted the 2002 Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs. The story follows two moles working on opposite sides of the law. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan, an undercover cop inside the Irish mob. Meanwhile, Matt Damon plays Colin Sullivan, a mob plant rising through the Massachusetts State Police. Jack Nicholson rules over both men as crime boss Frank Costello. Notably, the supporting cast includes Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Vera Farmiga, Alec Baldwin, and Ray Winstone. The film became a major critical and commercial hit, earning more than $290 million worldwide. In addition, it won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. Scorsese finally won Best Director after five earlier nominations. Thelma Schoonmaker also took home Best Film Editing. Roger Ebert gave the film four stars in his original RogerEbert.com review. For full cast and crew credits, visit The Departed on IMDb. Guest Panelist: Adam KempenaarAdam Kempenaar co-founded Filmspotting, one of the longest-running film podcasts in the medium. He launched the show in March 2005 with Sam Van Hallgren. Since 2012, he has co-hosted alongside Josh Larsen. Filmspotting has now passed 1,000 episodes and has also aired on WBEZ in Chicago. Furthermore, Kempenaar teaches at the University of Iowa, where his courses cover film criticism, sports and cinema, and podcasting. He is also a longtime member of the Chicago Film Critics Association. Additionally, he consults on marketing and content for the Chicago International Film Festival. For twenty years, he also led marketing and content for the Chicago Blackhawks. In 2025, he and Larsen celebrated two decades of the show with the first Filmspotting Fest in Chicago. Notably, Filmspotting was barely a year old when The Departed opened. That timing gives Adam a rare firsthand view of the 2006 film conversation. Find his reviews, Top 5 lists, and Sacred Cow episodes at filmspotting.net. Father Figures on The Departed PodcastFathers haunt every corner of The Departed. Costello grooms young Colin Sullivan from childhood, handing him groceries and shaping his loyalty. By contrast, Billy Costigan grows up with a dead father and a family split between Southie and the North Shore. Captain Queenan, played by Martin Sheen, becomes the steady parent Billy never had. Consequently, Queenan's death lands as the emotional turning point of the film. Meanwhile, Sullivan chases approval from every authority figure around him, from Costello to Ellerby. The film even closes on an open paternity question surrounding Madolyn's pregnancy. The panel digs into how Monahan's script treats the police and the mob as rival families. In practice, both institutions recruit sons, reward obedience, and punish betrayal. Above all, the Taste Buds and Adam ask which surrogate father does the most damage. Gender and Masculinity in The DepartedThe Departed is a crowded film about men performing toughness. Cops trade insults about each other's mothers, sexuality, and manhood. Costello, meanwhile, treats women as property and punchlines. Against that backdrop, Vera Farmiga's Madolyn stands nearly alone as a major female character. Interestingly, Monahan built her from two separate women in Infernal Affairs, one for each mole. As a result, she becomes the hinge between Billy and Colin. That choice raises real questions for the panel. Is Madolyn a fully realized character, or a device that links the two leads? Additionally, the crew considers how Sullivan's private failures mirror his fractured identity. The conversation also weighs whether Scorsese critiques this macho culture or simply enjoys it. Boston, Race, and Tribalism: The Departed 2006 Podcast DebateScorsese sets his story in South Boston, a neighborhood with a fraught racial history. Costello opens the film with a monologue about the Irish, the Italians, and Black Bostonians. Throughout the film, characters toss slurs as casually as they throw punches. Nevertheless, the panel debates what the film actually says about that bigotry. On one hand, the dialogue captures the tribal loyalties behind decades of city tension, including the 1970s busing crisis. On the other hand, some viewers argue the film treats ethnic insults as local color rather than subject. Furthermore, Costello's crew and the state police both run on in-group loyalty and suspicion of outsiders. Therefore, that tribalism powers the entire mole plot. The Taste Buds and Adam ask whether the film interrogates Boston's prejudices or leans on them for authenticity. Career Retrospective: Leonardo DiCaprioThis episode also features a Career Retrospective on Leonardo DiCaprio. The Departed marked his third collaboration with Scorsese, following Gangs of New York and The Aviator. Notably, 2006 was a banner year for him, and Blood Diamond earned him a Best Actor nomination that season. His early work stretches from This Boy's Life and What's Eating Gilbert Grape to Titanic. Later highlights include Catch Me If You Can, Inception, Django Unchained, and The Wolf of Wall Street. DiCaprio finally won the Best Actor Oscar for The Revenant. Since then, he has worked again with Quentin Tarantino, Scorsese, and Paul Thomas Anderson. In total, he has made six feature films with Scorsese. The panel walks through the full filmography, from child actor to elder statesman. However, you will have to listen to hear how the Taste Buds and Adam rank his work. Why The Departed Still MattersThe Departed endures as the film that finally won Scorsese his Oscar. Moreover, it proved a Hollywood remake of a Hong Kong crime film could stand on its own. Its double-agent structure still echoes through crime thrillers and prestige television. Additionally, its performances remain endlessly quotable, especially Wahlberg's profane Sergeant Dignam. Alongside Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, it helped define the Boston crime cycle of the 2000s. Ultimately, the film still sparks arguments about Scorsese's best work. Those arguments make it perfect bracket material for Movie of the Year: 2006. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1The Movies of 2006 Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape Part IBrowse every Movie of the Year episode FAQ: The Departed Podcast and FilmWhat is The Departed podcast episode about?This Movie of the Year: 2006 episode features the Taste Buds and guest Adam Kempenaar discussing Martin Scorsese's The Departed. Topics include father figures, gender, and the film's portrait of race in Boston. The episode also includes a Leonardo DiCaprio Career Retrospective. What is The Departed about?The Departed follows two moles in Boston. Billy Costigan goes undercover inside Frank Costello's Irish mob. Meanwhile, Colin Sullivan secretly works for Costello inside the Massachusetts State Police. Each man races to expose the other first. Who directed The Departed?Martin Scorsese directed The Departed. William Monahan wrote the screenplay, and the film won Scorsese his first Academy Award for Best Director. Is The Departed based on a true story?No, the plot comes from the 2002 Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs. However, Jack Nicholson's Frank Costello draws loose inspiration from real Boston gangster Whitey Bulger. Did The Departed win Best Picture?Yes. The Departed won Best Picture at the 79th Academy Awards. It also

Movie of the Year: 2006Children of MenThe Children of Men Podcast from Movie of the YearThe Children of Men podcast episode of Movie of the Year takes the Taste Buds to the end of the world. Ryan, Mike, and Greg dive into Alfonso Cuarón's 2006 dystopian thriller. The film imagines a Britain where no child has been born in eighteen years. Furthermore, it turns that bleak premise into one of the most gripping chase movies of the decade. This week, the panel breaks down Cuarón's camerawork and the uneasy bond between Theo and Nigel. Meanwhile, they ask how close the film's future really feels. Additionally, the episode brings two games to the table. Notably, this entry in the 2006 bracket packs plenty of argument into one grim, gorgeous movie. What's in This EpisodeAbout Children of Men (2006)Cuarón and CameraworkTheo and NigelThe Future Is NowI Never Metacritic I Didn't LikeDream Blunt RotationWhy Children of Men Still MattersRelated EpisodesFAQ About Children of Men (2006)Children of Men is a 2006 dystopian thriller co-written and directed by Alfonso Cuarón. The screenplay adapts P. D. James's 1992 novel The Children of Men. The story unfolds in 2027, after nearly two decades of global infertility. Clive Owen stars as Theo Faron, a burned-out former activist who now works a government desk job. His ex-wife Julian, played by Julianne Moore, pulls him into a dangerous mission. Specifically, she needs transit papers for Kee, a young refugee with a secret. Kee is pregnant, and nobody has seen a pregnancy in years. Theo must escort her across a collapsing Britain to a mysterious group called the Human Project. The supporting cast includes Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Pam Ferris, Charlie Hunnam, Danny Huston, and Peter Mullan. Universal released the film in the UK in September 2006 and in the US on Christmas Day. However, it failed to earn back its reported $76 million budget at the box office. Critics responded far more warmly. Roger Ebert gave it a four-star review and praised its convincing performances. Moreover, the film earned three Academy Award nominations, for Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, and Film Editing. You can explore the full cast and crew on IMDb. Cuarón and Camerawork: The Children of Men Podcast Goes LongFew films of 2006 look anything like Children of Men. Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki built the movie around long, unbroken takes. As a result, the camera rarely lets the audience look away. The Taste Buds start with the famous car ambush. That sequence plays out almost entirely inside a moving vehicle as attackers swarm the road. Notably, the crew used a custom Doggicam rig built into a modified Fiat Multipla. The camera could glide between passengers while a stunt driver steered from a hidden position. In practice, visual effects artists stitched several takes into what looks like one seamless shot. Then comes the battle in the Bexhill refugee camp. Theo runs through gunfire, rubble, and tanks while the camera stays glued to him. At one point, fake blood splatters across the lens. Cuarón reportedly called cut, but the chaos drowned him out. Consequently, the take continued, and the accidental blood stayed in the film. In this Children of Men podcast conversation, the panel asks a key question. Do these long takes deepen the story, or do they show off? Furthermore, we discuss how this style carried into Lubezki's later work on Gravity and The Revenant. Ultimately, the camerawork makes 2027 feel like live news footage. Theo and Nigel: Two Cousins at the End of the WorldTheo and Nigel share one short scene, yet it lingers long after the credits. Desperate for transit papers, Theo visits his powerful cousin. Danny Huston plays Nigel, a government official who runs the Ark of the Arts. The program collects the world's masterpieces while the rest of civilization burns. For instance, Michelangelo's David stands inside, and Picasso's Guernica hangs beside the dining table. Meanwhile, an inflatable pig floats above Battersea Power Station outside, a nod to Pink Floyd's Animals. The Taste Buds dig into what separates these two men. Everyone in this world has reasons to give up. Theo lost his young son Dylan to a flu pandemic, and grief hollowed him out. By contrast, Nigel copes by hoarding beauty behind locked doors. His teenage son sits at the table, absorbed in a handheld device and barely present. Theo asks his cousin how he keeps going when no one will be left to see the art. Nigel's answer amounts to a shrug. Therefore, the scene frames a central debate. Is Nigel's shelter for culture an act of hope or pure denial? Additionally, we ask whether Theo's real journey starts at that table. Above all, this pairing shows two ways to face the end: comfort or courage. The Future Is Now: A Children of Men 2006 Podcast Look at 2027Here is a sobering detail. Children of Men takes place in November 2027, which now sits barely a year away. When the film premiered in 2006, that date felt comfortably distant. However, the film turned twenty this month, and its future has nearly arrived. The Taste Buds take stock of what Cuarón imagined and what the real world delivered. The film's Britain is a police state built on fear. Soldiers round up refugees and hold them in cages. Public screens urge citizens to report illegal immigrants. Additionally, a bomb tears through a London coffee shop in the opening scene. News reports claim that every other nation has collapsed. Cuarón deliberately avoided sleek, futuristic design. Instead, he filled 2027 with worn-out cars, aging billboards, and familiar technology. As a result, the world feels less like science fiction and more like next week. Critics have tied the film to real events for two decades. Specifically, writers have linked it to refugee crises, border debates, and falling birth rates. Meanwhile, the panel weighs which predictions landed and which missed the mark. We also compare it to earlier screen dystopias, including the one in our A Clockwork Orange episode from the 1971 season. Ultimately, this segment asks why a twenty-year-old movie still feels like a warning. I Never Metacritic I Didn't LikeOur recurring game returns for another round of arguing with the critics. In I Never Metacritic I Didn't Like, the Taste Buds pull up a film's critical profile on Metacritic. Then we put that consensus on trial against our own reactions. Children of Men arrived with strong reviews and plenty of year-end praise. Notably, a few critics still found its politics underdeveloped. So the panel tests whether those high marks hold up twenty years later. Listen to the episode to hear how the critical record fares under Taste Buds cross-examination. Dream Blunt Rotation: Who Would You Party With from Children of Men?Dream Blunt Rotation asks a simple question. Which...

The Casino Royale Podcast: Bond Starts OverWelcome to the Casino Royale podcast episode from Movie of the Year: 2006. This week, the Taste Buds sit down at the high-stakes table with Daniel Craig's first mission as 007. Ryan, Mike, and Greg break down why a 53-year-old spy novel became the freshest action movie of 2006. Furthermore, they ask a bigger question. Can a franchise that old truly reinvent itself, or does it just change tuxedos? Casino Royale arrived at a strange moment for Bond. The Pierce Brosnan era had ended with invisible cars and digital tidal waves. Meanwhile, Jason Bourne was proving audiences wanted bruises instead of gadgets. Consequently, the producers went back to the very first Ian Fleming novel and started from zero. The result is a film that still shapes the Movie of the Year conversation about what a reboot should be. About the FilmCasino Royale is the 21st official James Bond film and the first to star Daniel Craig. Martin Campbell directed from a screenplay by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis. The story adapts Ian Fleming's 1953 debut novel, the only major Fleming book the official series had never filmed. The plot follows a newly promoted Bond as he earns his double-0 status. After a chase through a Madagascar construction site and a bombing attempt in Miami, he tracks the money to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Le Chiffre is a banker for terrorists who has lost his clients' funds. To recover them, he stages a poker tournament at the Casino Royale in Montenegro. MI6 sends Bond to beat him, alongside treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Judi Dench returns as M, and Jeffrey Wright debuts as Felix Leiter. Casino Royale opened in November 2006 and ran 144 minutes, the longest Bond film at that point. Critics embraced it almost immediately. Roger Ebert, catching up on the film in 2007, awarded it four stars and praised its return to visual clarity. Additionally, the film earned a BAFTA nomination for Craig and grossed roughly $600 million worldwide. More details are available on the film's IMDb page. This Casino Royale podcast episode covers all of that history before the debate begins. New to the season? Start with the 2006 season introduction to hear how the Taste Buds set up the year. A New Bond: Daniel Craig Takes the TuxedoThe first topic on this Casino Royale 2006 podcast is the man himself. When Eon announced Daniel Craig in October 2005, the reaction was ugly. Fans launched protest websites over his blond hair and blunt features. Notably, some tabloids reported that he could not drive a manual car. By contrast, the film opened to some of the best reviews in franchise history. The Taste Buds dig into what Craig actually changed. His Bond bleeds, sweats, and makes mistakes. Above all, he seems dangerous in a way that Brosnan's polished agent never did. The black-and-white cold open tells us everything in two minutes. Specifically, we watch Bond earn his first two kills, and one of them is a brutal bathroom fight rather than a clean shot. The episode also asks whether the film is a reboot, a prequel, or something stranger. Judi Dench carries over as M, so the continuity is deliberately loose. Ultimately, the hosts debate whether that looseness helps or hurts. The famous swimwear shot gets its due, too. Craig rising from the ocean flips the Ursula Andress beach moment from Dr. No, and the film knows it. Vesper Lynd and the Bond Girls of Casino RoyaleEva Green's Vesper Lynd is the emotional engine of the film. Consequently, this section of the Casino Royale podcast spends real time on her. Vesper is not a conquest. She is a treasury accountant who matches Bond insult for insult on the train to Montenegro. Moreover, she is the only person in the film who forces him to show weakness. The hosts compare Vesper to the women who came before her. Caterina Murino's Solange fills the more traditional Bond girl role, and the film treats her fate with unusual seriousness. In practice, that contrast is the point. Casino Royale keeps the old glamour but refuses to let it be weightless. The shower scene is the key example. Bond finds Vesper shaking on the bathroom floor after the stairwell fight, still in her evening gown. Rather than seduce her, he sits down in the water beside her. Nevertheless, the film never turns soft. The Venice finale delivers one of the coldest endings in the entire series. Eva Green won the BAFTA Rising Star Award in 2007, and the Taste Buds argue she earned it. Martin Campbell, Parkour, and PokerThe third topic on the Casino Royale podcast is the director. Martin Campbell had already saved Bond once. GoldenEye (1995) launched the Brosnan era after a six-year gap. Therefore, bringing him back in 2006 was a statement of intent. The hosts discuss what a Campbell action scene looks like. His camera holds still. His geography is clear. In addition, his stunts are real, which mattered enormously after Die Another Day. The Madagascar chase is the proof. Sébastien Foucan, one of the founders of parkour and free running, plays the bomber Mollaka. He flows over the construction site like water. Bond, however, just crashes through walls. That difference is characterization through stunt work. As a result, the sequence became the most imitated action scene of the decade. Then there is the poker. Fleming's novel used baccarat, but the film switched to Texas hold'em at the height of the poker boom. Specifically, the producers wanted a game audiences actually understood. The hosts break down how the tournament works as a three-act drama inside the larger movie. Bond loses, gets poisoned, nearly dies in the parking lot, and returns to the table. Meanwhile, the stairwell fight and the poisoning keep the stakes physical. The Aston Martin DBS crash even set a Guinness World Record for cannon rolls. State of the Franchise: Bond in 2006Every season, the Taste Buds step back and check the health of a major series. This time, the Casino Royale 2006 podcast State of the Franchise segment looks at 007 on the eve of Casino Royale. Die Another Day (2002) made money but embarrassed longtime fans. Meanwhile, The Bourne Identity (2002) and Batman Begins (2005) showed that audiences would reward a gritty restart. The hosts trace the corporate side as well. MGM finally secured the rights to the Casino Royale title in 1999 after decades of legal tangles. Furthermore, Sony's purchase of MGM in 2005 brought new studio money and a new marketing push. The segment asks a simple question. In 2006, was Bond a franchise in crisis or a franchise in transition? Notably, the answer shapes how the film should be judged. Listen to the episode to hear where each host lands. For a wider look at how 2006 blockbusters stacked up, revisit the bracket reveal episode. Casino Royale 2006 Podcast TriviaThe Trivia segment puts the hosts' Bond knowledge on the line. Some sample questions from this week: Which actor played James Bond on American television in 1954, in the very first Casino Royale adaptation?Which Czech spa town stood in for Montenegro during production?Which rock frontman recorded the theme song "You Know My Name"?Which luxury villa on Lake Como appears as the recovery clinic near the end of the film?How many Bond films had Martin Campbell directed before Casino Royale? Answers, arguments, and at least one wrong guess are all on the episode. Additionally, the hosts settle an old debate about the 1967 David Niven spoof and whether it counts. Why Casino Royale Still MattersNearly two decades later, Casino Royale remains the template for franchise reinvention. Every studio that has rebooted a hero since has borrowed from it. Specifically, the film proved that audiences will accept a stripped-down origin story if the character still feels dangerous. The Craig era ended with No Time to Die in 2021, and the series has yet to replace him. Consequently, the search for a new Bond keeps sending fans back to this film. It also matters within the 2006 bracket, which is why this Casino Royale podcast episode runs long. Few blockbusters of that year combine craft, star power, and genuine emotion so completely. However, the Taste Buds never hand out free passes. Whether Casino Royale advances or falls is a surprise reserved for the audio. For more from the season, add the 2006 Mixtape to your queue. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Enjoyed the Casino Royale podcast? These earlier 2006 episodes set the table. Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape Part Ia...

Movie of the Year: 2006Stranger Than FictionStranger than Fiction Podcast: Harold Crick Hears a NarratorThis week's Stranger than Fiction podcast episode asks a simple question: what happens when a comedy star stops being funny on purpose? In 2006, Will Ferrell stepped away from Ron Burgundy and Ricky Bobby to play Harold Crick, an IRS auditor who hears a British novelist narrating his life. Consequently, the Taste Buds had a lot to untangle. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome Cecilia Dillon and Rafiq Taylor of the Tubi or Not Tubi podcast to the panel. Together, the five of them debate Ferrell's restraint, the film's shaky romance, and its clever games with authorship. Above all, they ask whether Marc Forster's fable deserves a deep bracket run in the 2006 Movie of the Year bracket. About the FilmHarold Crick lives by the numbers. He counts his toothbrush strokes, times his walk to the bus, and audits taxpayers with quiet precision. One Wednesday, however, a voice starts describing his every move. The voice belongs to Karen Eiffel, played by Emma Thompson, a celebrated novelist with a decade-long case of writer's block. Her books always end with the hero's death. Harold, therefore, has a problem. Zach Helm wrote the screenplay, and Marc Forster directed after Finding Neverland and before Quantum of Solace. Dustin Hoffman plays Professor Jules Hilbert, a literature scholar who helps Harold figure out whether he lives in a comedy or a tragedy. Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Ana Pascal, a baker Harold is auditing, and Queen Latifah plays Eiffel's publisher-assigned assistant. Notably, Helm named nearly every character after a scientist or mathematician, from Francis Crick to David Hilbert. You can read the full production history on Wikipedia. Roger Ebert called the film a fable in the mode of Eric Rohmer in his original 2006 review. Additional cast and crew details live on IMDb. Guest Panelists: Cecilia Dillon and Rafiq Taylor of Tubi or Not TubiCeci Dillon and Rafiq Taylor host Tubi or Not Tubi, a podcast devoted to the strange, forgotten, and occasionally brilliant films buried in Tubi's free streaming library. Their show launched in 2020 and has now run for more than six seasons. In practice, that means hundreds of movies nobody else would watch so that you do not have to. Their catalog ranges from micro-budget Tubi Originals to cult favorites like Hundreds of Beavers, and they have interviewed filmmakers such as Coherence director James Ward Byrkit. Ceci and Rafiq bring quick wit and a real affection for overlooked cinema, which makes them ideal guests for a Stranger than Fiction podcast conversation. After all, this is a movie about a character who fears he is a footnote in someone else's story. Moreover, both hosts know the 2006 landscape well, and they arrive ready to argue. Harold and Will: Ferrell Plays It StraightThe first topic tackles the elephant in the room. Will Ferrell built a career on volume, chaos, and grown men screaming in their underwear. Here, by contrast, he speaks softly, stands still, and lets Emma Thompson's voiceover do the shouting. The panel asks whether this is a great performance or simply a great casting trick. Mike argues that Ferrell's comic instincts never fully disappear. Instead, they hide in small gestures, like the way Harold holds a guitar or stares at a plate of cookies. Greg wonders whether the film needs Ferrell at all, or whether any capable dramatic actor could play Harold. Meanwhile, Ceci and Rafiq weigh Harold against other 2006 comedians going straight. The panel also compares this turn with Ferrell's later dramatic work in Everything Must Go. Ultimately, the question is whether audiences ever separate Harold from Will, and whether they should. Romance or Not? Harold and AnaSecond, the panel puts the love story on trial. Ana Pascal is an anarchist baker who deliberately underpays her taxes. Harold is the man sent to audit her. In the film, she softens, he blossoms, and cookies solve most of their problems. However, does the relationship earn its screen time? Ryan questions whether Ana exists as a person or merely as a reward for Harold's growth. Rafiq points to the "flours" joke as evidence that the movie knows exactly how corny it is being. Additionally, the group debates Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance, which some critics praised and others found underwritten. Is this a romance, a comedy with a romance attached, or a fable that uses love as a plot device? The Taste Buds do not fully agree. As a result, the segment becomes one of the livelier arguments of the 2006 season. The Metanarrative: Who Is Writing Harold?The third topic digs into the film's biggest idea. Karen Eiffel is writing Harold, but who is writing Karen? The movie never explains how a fictional character came to walk the streets of Chicago. Instead, it treats the premise as a given and moves on to questions of responsibility. Professor Hilbert insists that the book must end as written, because the ending is a masterpiece. Harold, understandably, disagrees. Specifically, the panel examines whether the film is a story about authorship, mortality, or the ethics of art. Ceci draws connections to Charlie Kaufman, whose Adaptation covered similar ground four years earlier. Greg pushes back, arguing that Forster's film is warmer and less cynical. The panel also discusses the on-screen graphics that visualize Harold's counting, and how they reinforce the idea of a life reduced to data. Therefore, this Stranger than Fiction podcast segment doubles as a mini seminar on narrative theory, minus the tuition. Rushmore: The Music of 2006The Rushmore segment returns, and this week the mountain honors the music of 2006. Each panelist nominates the faces that defined the year's sound. Fittingly, Stranger than Fiction itself leans on music, with Spoon's Britt Daniel co-composing the score alongside Brian Reitzell. The year also gave us landmark albums across hip-hop, indie rock, and pop, and the panel argues over which artists earned a permanent place on the monument. Nevertheless, the final four faces stay a secret until you listen. Expect disagreement, at least one deep cut, and a debate about whether soundtrack contributions count. 2006 ProstarsFinally, the panel plays 2006 Prostars. In this segment, the Taste Buds and their guests assemble a team of the year's standout performers, the people who showed up in 2006 and simply dominated. Some picks come from the Stranger than Fiction cast, since Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, and Maggie Gyllenhaal all had busy years. Others reach across the full 2006 bracket. In addition, the group debates what makes someone a Prostar rather than merely a good actor having a good year. The roster stays under wraps here, so press play to hear who made the cut. Why Stranger than Fiction Still MattersTwenty years on, Stranger than Fiction still feels like a small miracle of tone. It could have been a gimmick. Instead, it became a gentle argument for paying attention to ordinary life. The film also marked a turning point for Will Ferrell, proving that he could carry a story without a single shouted punchline. Furthermore, its questions about authorship and control have only grown more relevant. We now live surrounded by algorithms narrating our choices back to us. Harold's panic at hearing his own life described feels less like fantasy every year. Consequently, this Stranger than Fiction podcast episode arrives at a good moment. Whether the film survives the bracket is another matter, and the Taste Buds have plenty to say about it. Listen to the episode, then let us know whether Harold Crick deserves to advance. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006 Intro, Part 1The 2006 Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape, Part ILittle Miss SunshineAll Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: Stranger than Fiction Podcast and FilmWhat is this Stranger than Fiction podcast episode about? The Taste Buds and guests Cecilia Dillon and Rafiq Taylor debate Will Ferrell's dramatic turn, the Harold and Ana romance, and the film's metanarrative. The episode also features the Rushmore and 2006 Prostars segments. What is Stranger than Fiction about? IRS auditor Harold Crick begins hearing a novelist narrate his life. When the narrator announces his imminent death, he sets out to change the ending. Who directed Stranger than Fiction? Marc Forster directed the film...

Movie of the Year: 2006The Action Figure Draft, Part IIThe 2006 Action Figures Part 2 Draft ContinuesThe Taste Buds return for the second half of their 2006 action figures part 2 episode, continuing the character selection debate that defined Part 1. This special segment doubles down on the fun of distilling an entire year's worth of cinema into miniature collectible form — and the picks get even more contentious. As the action figures from 2006 draft progresses deeper into each host's selections, the trade-offs between franchise loyalty, character design, and cultural impact become sharper and more entertaining. How the Draft WorksFor those joining mid-series, the action figure draft is a curated exercise in taste-making. The Taste Buds take turns selecting which film characters from 2006 they'd want immortalized as collectible figures. Each pick reflects both personal preference and the broader cultural weight of the films themselves. Moreover, the selection process forces hosts to articulate why certain characters resonate — whether through iconic design, memorability, or sheer cultural dominance. In practice, this means later rounds reveal unexpected allegiances and blind spots. The tension in Part 2 emerges from the dwindling pool of obvious choices. Consequently, picks become more idiosyncratic, and the banter gets sharper. Additionally, hosts must defend choices that might seem obscure to casual listeners, which often leads to the episode's funniest moments. The draft format, ultimately, is less about cinema criticism and more about personal mythology — what each host chose to represent 2006 in their own collection. Characters, Franchises, and Fan Favorites in 2006 Action FiguresPart 2 showcases the breadth of 2006's character work across genres. From action stars to supporting players, the range of selections demonstrates how varied the year's film landscape truly was. The Taste Buds navigate the space between obvious A-list characters and deeper cuts that only serious film fans would recognize. This balance keeps the segment engaging for both casual listeners and dedicated cinephiles. IMDb's comprehensive filmography for 2006 reveals just how many significant characters were introduced that year. Furthermore, the draft highlights how character design — from costume to practical effects to performance — shapes a film's lasting legacy. Characters that translate well to figurine form often become touchstones in pop culture memory. By contrast, some of 2006's most acclaimed performances are harder to immortalize in plastic, which creates an interesting friction between critical acclaim and collectibility. Notably, this friction is precisely what makes the 2006 action figures draft fun to listen to. Action figures have a rich history as cultural artifacts that preserve cinematic memory across decades. Why the Action Figure Draft Still MattersThe action figure draft, while playful, reveals something genuine about how we remember films. It forces a conversation about which moments and characters define a year — not from a critical distance, but from a place of personal attachment. The draft isn't about ranking films; it's about ranking characters, which is a fundamentally different and often more revealing exercise. In essence, the Taste Buds are building a cultural snapshot of 2006 through the figures they choose. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Action Figure Draft Part 12006 Intro Part 12006 Bracket RevealMovie of the Year Podcast Archive FAQ: 2006 Action Figures Part 2What is the Action Figure Draft?The Action Figure Draft is a special segment of Movie of the Year where the Taste Buds take turns selecting which film characters from a given year they'd want immortalized as collectible action figures. It's a playful but revealing exercise in taste-making and cultural memory. Do I need to listen to Part 1 first?Yes, Part 1 establishes the draft's rules and covers the first round of selections. Part 2 continues from where that episode left off, so listeners will get more out of it having heard the setup and early picks. What makes a good action figure character?The Taste Buds consider multiple factors: iconic costume design, memorability, franchise appeal, and the character's cultural impact. Some picks prioritize instantly recognizable silhouettes, while others reward performances or characters with deeper cult followings. Are the hosts serious about their picks?Yes and no. While the selections are genuinely thoughtful and reveal real preferences, the tone is playful. The hosts defend their choices with humor and insight, making the draft entertaining to listen to even if you disagree with every pick. How does the draft format change the conversation about 2006 films?Instead of ranking films by critical merit, the draft focuses on individual characters and moments. This shifts the conversation away from "best film" and toward "most memorable character," which often surfaces different and more personal insights. Can I predict which characters will be picked?Part 1 covers the obvious frontrunners, but Part 2 gets into deeper cuts and more idiosyncratic selections. Later rounds reveal each host's blind spots and unexpected allegiances, making the later picks harder to predict. Why do action figures matter to film discourse?Action figures are a cultural barometer. Which characters get immortalized in plastic often tells us which moments and performances shape how we remember a year. The draft is a fun way to explore that question — what do we actually hold onto from cinema?

Movie of the Year: 2006The Action Figure DraftThe Challenge: Drafting 2006 Action FiguresDrafting 2006 action figures puts a unique spin on the Movie of the Year podcast format. Rather than debating which film deserves the crown, the Taste Buds face a different challenge: assembling the ultimate action figure collection from a single year. The draft requires each panelist to select figures across six distinct categories: a wizard, a fighter, a cleric, a bard, a playset, and a vehicle. This episode blends nostalgia with strategy, forcing the hosts to think critically about what made 2006 action figures memorable. The format mirrors the bracket-style competition that defines Movie of the Year, but the stakes feel more playful. Additionally, the draft structure demands quick thinking and creative justification. Furthermore, each selection reveals something about the chooser's pop culture priorities and childhood memories. About This Draft EpisodeThe action figure draft emerged as a natural evolution of the MOTY format. Rather than selecting films, the panel turns its attention to the plastic heroes and villains that decorated collectors' shelves in 2006. Movie of the Year uses debate and argumentation to crown champions, and the action figure draft applies the same rigor to toys. Specifically, the draft forces panelists to make strategic picks, defend their choices, and navigate the inherent tension between nostalgia and objective quality. 2006 action figures represent a particular cultural moment. The year saw releases across multiple franchises, from superhero lines to fantasy collectibles. Notably, the action figure market in 2006 reflected both established toy lines and emerging collector communities. Additionally, the draft category breakdown (wizard, fighter, cleric, bard, playset, vehicle) creates natural tension, since exceptional figures exist in every category. Consequently, difficult choices become inevitable. Guest Panelist: TaylorTaylor brings extensive experience to the MOTY table as a regular panelist across multiple seasons. Prior to joining the Movie of the Year rotation, Taylor hosted the PopFilter superhero podcast, where the show explored comic book adaptations with the same critical rigor applied to film. Taylor's background in superhero discourse makes this action figure draft particularly fitting, given the prevalence of superhero figures in 2006 collections. Furthermore, Taylor's perspective on character design and narrative arc translates directly to evaluating which action figures merit selection in a competitive draft format. Guest Panelist: NateNate brings fresh energy to the panel as the host of Debut Buddies, a podcast exploring first impressions and entry points to beloved franchises. This sensibility proves valuable in an action figure draft, where nostalgia and first-time experiences collide. Nate's podcast work focuses on understanding why certain properties resonate with audiences at their moment of introduction. Additionally, Nate's experience discussing collectibles and fan culture across episodes of Debut Buddies positions the panelist well to articulate the cultural significance of 2006 action figures. Consequently, Nate's selections reflect both personal enthusiasm and broader cultural commentary. The Draft Categories ExplainedThe six-category format creates a balanced draft structure. Each category demands different types of excellence, ensuring no single franchise dominates all selections. The wizard category rewards figures with fantasy credentials or magical accessories. Meanwhile, the fighter category prioritizes dynamic sculpts and detailed articulation. The cleric category highlights figures designed for healing or spiritual roles. The bard category celebrates characters known for charm, performance, or charisma. Placesets and vehicles round out the draft. A standout playset can define an entire collection, offering rich world-building and multiple character integration points. Vehicles, meanwhile, serve dual purposes: they function as impressive display pieces and provide practical storage for smaller figures. Furthermore, both categories push panelists to think beyond single-character selections. Therefore, strategic panelists often save these final picks for surprise value. Why This Draft Format Still MattersAction figure drafts celebrate toys as cultural artifacts worth serious debate. The format acknowledges that action figures were never mere children's toys; they represent artistic achievement, design innovation, and fandom expression. By applying the Movie of the Year framework to collectibles, the podcast validates pop culture objects that collectors have defended for decades. Moreover, the draft creates space for nostalgia without dismissing critical analysis. The 2006 action figure market occupies a specific historical position. The year exists in a liminal space between analog and digital toy culture. Additionally, 2006 represents a moment when adult collecting had achieved mainstream legitimacy. Consequently, the figures released that year carry weight beyond simple nostalgia. Furthermore, examining which 2006 action figures merit selection reveals much about evolving standards in toy design, packaging, and character representation. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year: 2006 Podcast Intro – Start your 2006 journey with the season setupMovies of 2006 Bracket Reveal – Discover the full tournament structure2006 Mixtape Part I – Explore films that didn't crack the main bracketMovie of the Year Archives – Browse all seasons and episodes FAQ: Action Figure Draft Podcast and 2006 CollectiblesWhat is the Movie of the Year action figure draft about?The action figure draft applies the Movie of the Year tournament format to toy collecting. Rather than debating films, the Taste Buds select action figures across six categories: wizard, fighter, cleric, bard, playset, and vehicle. Each panelist makes strategic picks, defends their choices, and competes for the title of best overall collection. The episode combines nostalgia with competitive analysis, exploring why certain figures from 2006 deserve consideration as collectibles worth defending. What made 2006 a significant year for action figures?2006 represented a peak moment for toy collecting. The year saw sophisticated figure releases across multiple franchises, from superhero lines to fantasy properties. Additionally, adult collecting had achieved mainstream acceptance by 2006, meaning toy companies invested in higher-quality sculpts and articulation. Furthermore, the figures released that year benefited from advanced manufacturing techniques while maintaining handcrafted design sensibilities. Consequently, 2006 action figures occupy a unique cultural position as genuinely excellent toys. Why are the draft categories split between characters and objects?The six-category system ensures balanced competition. Character categories (wizard, fighter, cleric, bard) reward figures with strong design and character definition. Object categories (playset, vehicle) prevent single-franchise domination and force panelists to think strategically about display value and practical considerations. This mix creates tension throughout the draft, since exceptional options exist in every category. Therefore, no single panelist can monopolize excellence across all selections. What defines a strong action figure?Excellent action figures balance multiple qualities. Articulation allows dynamic posing, while sculpt detail rewards close examination. Paint application separates fine figures from mass-produced alternatives. Additionally, character accuracy matters; figures should capture essential traits of their subjects. Furthermore, accessories expand possibilities, from weapons to alternate heads. Above all, great figures inspire collectors to display them proudly and handle them repeatedly. Consequently, the draft rewards figures that succeed across these dimensions. How does the action figure draft compare to Movie of the Year bracket episodes?Both formats apply competitive debate to pop culture objects. Movie of the Year bracket episodes determine which film deserves recognition within a specific year. The action figure draft adapts this structure to collectibles, asking which figures merit selection within category constraints. Additionally, both formats privilege entertaining discussion over predetermined outcomes. Furthermore, both celebrate deep fandom engagement and critical thinking about cultural products. Notably, the action figure draft adds a playful dimension, since figures encourage physical interaction and collection aesthetics beyond what films can offer. What should listeners expect from this two-part draft?Part One introduces the draft format, the panelists, and the strategy. The Taste Buds will work through early selections, revealing their priorities and defending their picks. Expect passionate arguments, surprising choices, and nostalgic references to 2006 toy releases. Additionally, Taylor and Nate will bring distinct perspectives shaped by their respective podcasting backgrounds. Furthermore, the episode balances competitive intensity

Movie of the Year: 2006Volver The Volver Podcast Episode Enters the BracketThe Volver podcast episode brings Pedro Almodóvar's beloved ghost story into the full Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. This week, Greg and Mike hold down the fort while Ryan sits this one out. Fortunately, they have serious backup. New Yorker television critic Inkoo Kang joins the panel to talk grief, ghosts, and the women of La Mancha. Together, they ask whether Almodóvar's warmest film has what it takes to survive the tournament. The conversation covers the film's supernatural heart, its unforgettable women, and its thoroughly rotten men. Additionally, the crew builds a Mount Rushmore of It Girls and runs through The Five. As always, the bracket outcome stays a secret here. Consequently, you will need to listen to find out how Volver fares. About the FilmVolver is a 2006 Spanish comedy-drama written and directed by Pedro Almodóvar. Penélope Cruz stars as Raimunda, a working-class mother in Madrid whose life unravels after a sudden death at home. Meanwhile, her sister Sole discovers that their late mother Irene, played by Carmen Maura, may have returned from the grave. The film is set partly in La Mancha, the windswept region where Almodóvar grew up. Volver premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, where it won Best Screenplay. Notably, its six lead actresses shared the Best Actress prize, an almost unheard-of collective honor. Cruz later earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress, a landmark for Spanish-language performances. Roger Ebert gave the film four stars and named it among his four-star movies of 2006. You can find full details on the film's cast and awards at IMDb. The 2006 field is stacked with heavyweights. Volver joins previous entries like The Prestige, Little Miss Sunshine, and Borat in the fight for the crown. Guest Panelist: Inkoo KangInkoo Kang is the television critic at The New Yorker, where she has covered TV since 2022. Before that, she served as a TV critic at The Washington Post and The Hollywood Reporter. Her byline has also appeared at Slate, MTV News, The Village Voice, and TheWrap over a career spanning more than a decade. In practice, that résumé makes her one of the sharpest working critics on storytelling, performance, and cultural memory. Her perspective on Almodóvar's women makes this Volver podcast conversation essential listening. Ghosts and Grief on the Volver PodcastVolver treats death with a shrug and grief with a casserole. The Taste Buds dig into how Almodóvar builds a ghost story without a single scare. Irene's return plays as domestic comedy first and emotional reckoning second. However, the laughs never cheapen the loss underneath them. Inkoo, Greg, and Mike explore how the film's La Mancha setting shapes its view of mortality. The village women tend graves like gardens and speak of the dead like neighbors. As a result, the supernatural feels less like fantasy and more like tradition. The panel asks whether that matter-of-fact approach to death is exactly why the film hits so hard. Ultimately, Volver argues that the dead stay with us because we keep setting a place for them. Mothers, Daughters, and Sisters on the Volver PodcastEvery meaningful relationship in Volver runs between women. Raimunda and her daughter Paula protect each other through the film's darkest turn. Sole and Raimunda circle each other with the friction only sisters manage. Above all, Irene's return forces three generations to confront secrets that shaped them all. The panel unpacks how Almodóvar stages forgiveness as the film's true climax. Specifically, they discuss the confessions between mother and daughter that reframe everything before them. Inkoo brings a critic's eye to Cruz's performance, which anchors the whole ensemble. Moreover, the group considers how the film honors caretaking as heroic labor. Cooking, cleaning, and burying become acts of love here, not background noise. Ugh, Dudes: The Men of VolverThe men of Volver are a rogues' gallery of predators, cheats, and dead weight. Consequently, the Volver podcast panel dedicates a full segment to asking a simple question. Why does Almodóvar write men this way, and what does their awfulness reveal? The panel argues that the film's male characters function as weather, not people. They cause damage, and then the women clean up after the storm. By contrast, the women get every ounce of the film's interiority and warmth. The crew debates whether this imbalance is a flaw or the entire point. Nevertheless, everyone agrees on one thing. The dudes in this movie? Ugh. Rushmore: It GirlsPenélope Cruz became a global It Girl on the strength of this performance. Therefore, the crew carves a Mount Rushmore of It Girls in her honor. Greg, Mike, and Inkoo each argue for the four faces that defined It Girl status across eras. The picks range from obvious icons to deep-cut favorites, and the debate gets appropriately heated. Listen to the episode to hear which four faces make the mountain. The Five on This Week's Volver PodcastThe episode also features The Five, a recurring segment built on movie archetypes. The panel receives five iconic character types and must argue for the 2006 star who best embodies each one. This week's archetypes are a murderers' row: Scout Finch, Batman, Ripley, Robin Hood, and Frankenstein's Monster. Consequently, the debate ranges across the entire 2006 landscape. Who carries Scout's wide-eyed moral clarity? Which star wears Batman's brooding armor? Moreover, who earns Ripley's steel, Robin Hood's roguish charm, or the Monster's tragic misunderstood soul? Greg, Mike, and Inkoo each make their cases, and the picks get delightfully contentious. The answers stay spoiler-free here, so hit play to hear who claims each archetype. Why Volver Still MattersVolver endures because it treats ordinary women's lives as the stuff of grand cinema. Twenty years later, its blend of melodrama, comedy, and ghost story still feels singular. Cruz's Oscar-nominated turn opened doors for Spanish-language performances in Hollywood's biggest categories. Furthermore, the film cemented Almodóvar's late-career run as one of world cinema's great streaks. The Volver podcast conversation makes the case that the film's warmth is its weapon. Plenty of movies mine grief for devastation. By contrast, Volver mines grief for connection, and that choice keeps audiences returning. The title means "to return" in Spanish, after all. Great films do exactly that. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movies of 2006: Intro Part 12006 Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: A C**k and Bull Story2006 Mixtape Part I2006 Mixtape Part IIBrickThe Puffy ChairThe Devil Wears PradaLittle Miss SunshineThe PrestigeBoratAll Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: Volver Podcast and FilmWhat is the Volver podcast episode about? In this Volver podcast episode, Greg and Mike from Movie of the Year discuss Pedro Almodóvar's 2006 film with guest critic Inkoo Kang. Topics include ghosts and grief, the film's women, its terrible men, a Mount Rushmore of It Girls, and The Five. What is Volver about? Volver follows Raimunda, a Madrid mother played by Penélope Cruz, as she covers up a death at home. Meanwhile, her late mother apparently returns from the grave to settle unfinished business with her daughters. Who directed Volver? Pedro Almodóvar wrote and directed Volver. The Spanish filmmaker set the story partly in La Mancha, the region where he grew up. What does Volver mean? Volver means "to return" in Spanish. The title comes from a classic tango and...

Movie of the Year: 2006Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of KazakhstanThe Borat Podcast Phenomenon: Satire, Shock Value, and Staying PowerThe Borat podcast from Movie of the Year explores one of 2006's most controversial and talked-about films. Sacha Baron Cohen's mockumentary arrived as a cultural earthquake. Audiences had never seen anything quite like it. The film presented itself as a documentary following a fictional Kazakhstani journalist through America. In reality, it weaponized satire in ways that still provoke debate today. The Borat podcast episode digs into how Cohen achieved this effect. We examine the craft behind the chaos. Furthermore, we ask whether the shock value overshadowed the actual social commentary. Above all, this is a film that demands to be discussed. About the FilmDirected by Larry Charles, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan premiered at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival. The Borat podcast traces the film's journey from festival premiere to cultural phenomenon. The film followed Borat Sagdiyev, a television reporter from Kazakhstan, as he traveled across the United States. Nominally, he was researching American culture. In practice, he spent the film creating uncomfortable, often hilarious interactions with unsuspecting Americans. The film was partially scripted and partially improvisational. Cohen's performance art approach meant that real people became unwitting participants in elaborate pranks. Consequently, the picture sparked immediate controversy about consent, cultural sensitivity, and the ethics of mockumentary comedy. The film grossed over $260 million worldwide and became a cultural phenomenon virtually overnight. By contrast, most independent comedies barely reach a fraction of that audience. Learn more about Borat on IMDb, or read the full Wikipedia entry. The Satire, the Method, and the Cultural ImpactAt its core, Borat operates as a Trojan horse. The film pretends to be a fish-out-of-water comedy. However, it's actually a scathing critique of American attitudes. The Borat podcast digs into this contradiction at length. Cohen's character exposes racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism by drawing them out of ordinary people. The satire works because audiences laugh before they realize what they're laughing at. Additionally, viewers must grapple with complicity. They enjoyed the comedy, yet that comedy often relies on humiliating real people. This tension is precisely the point. The method behind Borat borrows heavily from Andy Kaufman's tradition of transgressive performance art. Cohen spent years developing the character before filming began. He remained in character between takes. Furthermore, he worked with a skeleton crew to maintain the documentary illusion. Most of the "interviewees" had no idea they were being filmed for a narrative feature. This approach blurs the line between documentary and fiction in unprecedented ways. Notably, it also raises serious ethical questions that the film itself never fully addresses. The cultural impact proved enormous. Within weeks, Borat became shorthand for a particular brand of boundary-pushing comedy. College students quoted the film constantly. Yet critics remained divided on whether the satire was sufficiently incisive or merely cruel. The film's influence on comedy cannot be overstated. It opened doors for films like Brüno and The Dictator. Nevertheless, it also sparked a conversation about the ethics of pranking that continues today. By contrast, most comedies fade from cultural memory. Borat remains present in discourse because it asks uncomfortable questions. IP Freely on the Borat Podcast: What If a 2006 Director Made a Marvel Movie?Here's a thought experiment: Imagine Larry Charles directing a Marvel property in 2006. The result would be radically different from what the MCU eventually became. Charles brings a documentary aesthetic and deep discomfort into every frame. He's drawn to morally ambiguous situations. Therefore, his Marvel film would prioritize character awkwardness over spectacle. Consider this scenario: Charles directs Iron Man in 2006 with a 2004-era approach to superhero casting. The tone would be satirical, maybe even mockumentary-styled. Robert Downey Jr.'s character would feel less like a hero and more like a flawed businessman uncomfortable with his own mythology. Alternatively, picture Sacha Baron Cohen as a Marvel character in 2006. The studio would never allow his anarchic energy into their carefully controlled franchises. Yet imagine if they had. Cohen could have been a Thor-like character who doesn't understand Earth. His fish-out-of-water routine would align perfectly with fish-out-of-space storytelling. The scenes with other Avengers would crackle with uncomfortable tension. Baron Cohen thrives in social friction. A Marvel movie would provide an entire world of characters for him to destabilize. The result would feel more like a Kaufman film than anything in the MCU canon. Such a project would be too unpredictable for Marvel's brand management. PopFilter Hall of FameThe Taste Buds inducted Borat into the PopFilter Hall of Fame. This honor recognizes films that transcend their moment and become part of pop culture permanently. Borat earned this status for several reasons. First, the film's central character became a recognizable reference point. People who never saw the movie know who Borat is. Moreover, the film demonstrated that mockumentary could be both commercially viable and culturally significant. Additionally, it showed that comedy could be provocative and still find a massive audience. Finally, the picture's impact on subsequent comedy filmmaking cannot be understated. Every awkward-comedy and cringe-comedy film since 2006 owes something to this picture's approach. Hall of Fame status also reflects longevity. Rewatching Borat today feels different than it did in 2006. The film has aged in unexpected ways. Some jokes land harder because they reflect genuine changes in American discourse. Others feel more uncomfortable because our cultural standards have shifted. Specifically, the film's treatment of certain communities provokes more heated debate now. Nevertheless, the picture remains relevant. It remains a text people genuinely discuss in 2024. That staying power justifies Hall of Fame recognition. Why Borat Still MattersFifteen years after its release, Borat remains essential viewing. The Borat podcast episode demonstrates this staying power. The film documents a specific moment in American history. The movie captures mid-2000s attitudes with uncomfortable clarity. Furthermore, it serves as a mirror. What the film reveals about American culture in 2006 says as much about us as viewers as it does about the people on screen. The picture represents peak mockumentary filmmaking. Few films since have matched its ability to make audiences simultaneously laugh and cringe. Beyond its comedic achievements, Borat represents a risk-taking moment in mainstream cinema. The film was genuinely dangerous to make. Cohen and Charles put themselves in real physical danger. Moreover, they put others in uncomfortable situations without consent. This raises questions that remain unresolved. Can art justify its methods? When does comedy become cruelty? These aren't just academic questions. They're central to the film's power. Borat doesn't let audiences off easy. It forces us to think about what we're laughing at. Ultimately, that's why the film continues to matter. It demands engagement rather than passive consumption. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006: Podcast Intro, Part 1Movie of the Year 2006: Bracket Reveal2006 Mixtape, Part 1All Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: Borat Podcast and FilmWhat is the Borat podcast episode about? The Borat podcast explores Sacha Baron Cohen's 2006 mockumentary as a work of satire, examining the methods Cohen used to expose American attitudes. The Borat podcast episode discusses the film's cultural impact, its boundary-pushing approach to comedy, and why it remains relevant today. The Borat podcast also features segments imagining a Marvel movie directed by the film's director Larry Charles, and we induct Borat into the PopFilter Hall of Fame. What is the film Borat about? Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is a mockumentary that follows a fictional Kazakhstani journalist through the United States. The film presents itself as a documentary but is actually a carefully constructed satire designed to provoke reactions from real people. Sacha Baron Cohen's performance exposes uncomfortable truths about American culture through...

Movie of the Year: 2006The Prestige (feat. Kenny McMillan from the Frame and Reference pod!)The Prestige Podcast: Nolan's Obsession with Magic, Ambition, and DeceptionThe Prestige podcast brings one of Christopher Nolan's most intricate achievements to the center of discussion. Released in 2006, The Prestige stands as a masterclass in misdirection—both thematically and narratively. On this episode of the The Prestige podcast, Ryan, Mike, and Greg explore how the film's structure itself becomes a magic trick, with Kenny McMillan from Frame and Reference offering cinematographic insight into Nolan's visual storytelling. This episode of The Prestige podcast examines why The Prestige has aged into a richer, more rewarding experience than initial audiences may have recognized. About The PrestigeThe Prestige follows two rival magicians, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), whose competitive obsession spirals into tragedy and revenge. Set in Victorian London, the film weaves illusion, science, and sacrifice into a narrative that demands multiple viewings. Directed by Christopher Nolan from a screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer, the film is based on Christopher Priest's 1995 novel. The cast includes Scarlett Johansson as the central illusion Olivia, Michael Caine as the mentor Cutter, and David Bowie in a pivotal role as inventor Nikola Tesla. The film explores the cost of ambition and the blurred line between performance and reality. Nolan and Structure: How The Prestige Podcast Uncovers the Architecture of MisdirectionChristopher Nolan's approach to The Prestige mirrors the film's central conceit: the three-act structure of a magic trick. The exposition sets up the trick, the turning point misdirects the audience, and the prestige reveals the truth. Nolan employs this framework to build narrative tension that rewards attentive viewers. Moreover, the film's editing and pacing function as visual sleight of hand, concealing crucial details in plain sight. The director's command of chronology and revelation transforms structural mechanics into thematic content. Additionally, the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema reinforces this architecture through framing choices that obscure as much as they reveal. Consequently, viewers who dismiss the film on first viewing often discover entirely new dimensions upon rewatching—a quality that separates The Prestige from conventional period dramas. Magic and Ambition: The Prestige Podcast Explores the Psychology of ObsessionAt its core, The Prestige interrogates the price of ambition through the lens of performance and sacrifice. The Prestige podcast digs into how both Borden and Angier pursue mastery of the transported man illusion, but their methods diverge fundamentally. Borden's sacrifice is existential; Angier's is technological. The film suggests that true magic—or true achievement of any kind—requires a willingness to lose something irreplaceable. Furthermore, the duality that defines both characters extends beyond performance into identity itself. The film examines what performers owe to their craft and what craft demands of performers. In particular, the female perspective through Olivia complicates the male rivalry at the narrative's center. Meanwhile, the film positions Nikola Tesla as the ultimate embodiment of ambition unmoored from morality, a cautionary figure whose genius destabilizes the rules governing the Victorian world. Twins: Doubling, Duality, and DeceptionThe Prestige operates through systematic doubling. Twin magicians, a transported man illusion that exploits identical performers, and the fundamental duality of Christian Bale's Alfred Borden structure the film's central mystery. The screenplay leverages the audience's familiarity with magic mechanics—particularly the "double" as a common trick device—to guide viewers toward false conclusions. Meanwhile, the film treats twinning not merely as plot mechanism but as philosophical premise. Both main characters pursue versions of themselves that are more successful, more admired, or more powerful than their authentic selves. Additionally, the Tesla machine introduces a horrifying literalization of doubling: what happens when your double is not your collaborator but your replacement? The film's treatment of identity as something that can be split, cloned, or discarded raises questions about the self that persist long after the final reveal. Mount Rushmore: Scandals of '96The Taste Buds rank the most shameful, embarrassing, or otherwise scandalous cinematic moments of 1996. Though The Prestige arrived a decade later, the conversation extends naturally to the ethical compromises and moral failings embedded in the film itself. Both Borden and Angier engage in forms of deception that approach criminality. The death of a stage assistant, the exploitation of Olivia, and the casual cruelty with which both men pursue victory constitute a catalog of wrongs that the film neither excuses nor entirely condemns. This section invites listeners to debate the film's moral landscape and the extent to which audience sympathy with these characters implicates us in their misconduct. Shopping Spree: The Best of 2006 CinemaThe Shopping Spree segment celebrates the feast of cinema that 2006 offered. The Prestige competes in a year alongside Little Miss Sunshine, The Devil Wears Prada, Brick, and Tristram Shandy: A C**k and Bull Story. The conversation weighs Nolan's technical and narrative ambition against the year's other standouts, examining what makes 2006 a genuinely competitive year for the tournament. Furthermore, the panelists consider which films have endured most meaningfully and which have faded in critical esteem over two decades. Notably, The Prestige has sustained and even deepened its reputation as audiences have grown more sophisticated about Nolan's structural innovations. Why The Prestige Podcast Resonates: What Makes This Film EndureTwenty years after its release, The Prestige remains relevant because it articulates anxieties about technology, identity, and performance that have only intensified. The film's treatment of the Tesla machine as a science-fiction intrusion into a historical setting prefigures contemporary concerns about artificial consciousness and the ethics of duplication. Beyond its formal brilliance, the film speaks to the human capacity for self-deception and the stories we tell ourselves to justify our ambitions. Additionally, Nolan's commitment to practical effects and in-camera illusions—a philosophy that runs through his career—makes The Prestige feel increasingly precious in an age of digital manipulation. The film argues, implicitly, that authentic magic resides not in technological wizardry but in the human desire to believe. Ultimately, The Prestige endures because it demands intellectual engagement while delivering emotional and sensory satisfaction—a balance that few contemporary films achieve. This is precisely why the Prestige podcast episode deepens with each listen, revealing new dimensions in both the film and its broader cultural significance. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 20062006 Intro Part 1: Bracket RevealTristram Shandy: A C**k and Bull StoryBrick2006 Mixtape Part IThe Puffy ChairThe Devil Wears PradaLittle Miss SunshineAll Movie of the Year Episodes Guest Panelist: Kenny McMillanKenny McMillan is the host and producer of Frame and Reference, a cinematography podcast featuring long-form, unstructured conversations with working cinematographers about their craft, influences, and current projects. Through Frame and Reference, McMillan has interviewed leading cinematographers working across film and television, exploring how visual storytelling shapes narrative impact. His deep engagement with cinematographic practice brings technical expertise and artistic sensibility to film discussion. McMillan's work on the podcast has established him as a thoughtful voice in cinematography education and criticism, emphasizing the collaborative relationship between director and cinematographer. His perspective on Nolan's visual strategy in The Prestige—particularly Hoyte van Hoytema's contributions to the film's...

Movie of the Year: 2006Little Miss Sunshine (feat. Don Shanahan from Every Movie Has a Lesson!)Little Miss Sunshine Podcast: The Hoovers Hit the BracketThe Little Miss Sunshine podcast episode has arrived, and the Taste Buds are packing into the VW bus. This week, Movie of the Year puts one of 2006's biggest indie success stories through the tournament. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome film critic Don Shanahan to help judge the Hoover family's run at the crown. Together, the panel digs into the family dynamics, the unforgettable ending, the film's surprising philosophical streak, and the husband-and-wife directing team behind it all. Additionally, the crew squares off in a round of Trivia and builds a fashion-themed Rushmore. Can a sunny yellow bus carry this movie deep into the 2006 bracket? Push, hop in, and find out. About the FilmLittle Miss Sunshine follows the Hoover family on an 800-mile road trip from Albuquerque to Redondo Beach. Seven-year-old Olive has qualified for the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant, and the whole dysfunctional clan piles into a failing Volkswagen bus to get her there. The passenger list includes a failed motivational speaker, a suicidal Proust scholar, a Nietzsche-obsessed teen who refuses to speak, a heroin-snorting grandpa, and one very determined mom. Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris from Michael Arndt's screenplay, the film premiered at Sundance in January 2006. It became a box office sensation, grossing over $101 million on an $8 million budget. Moreover, it earned four Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture. Alan Arkin won Best Supporting Actor, and Arndt took home Best Original Screenplay. RogerEbert.com called it a gentle family satire in the tradition of the countercultural comedies of the 1970s. Now the film faces its toughest challenge yet: the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Guest Panelist: Don ShanahanThe Taste Buds welcome film critic Don Shanahan to the panel. Don is a Chicago-based, Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic and the founder of the long-running review site Every Movie Has a Lesson. He also serves as Editor-in-Chief and Content Supervisor of the film department at Film Obsessive. Furthermore, Don co-hosts the Cinephile Hissy Fit Podcast on the Ruminations Radio Network. A school teacher by day, he writes his reviews with life lessons in mind, from the serious to the farcical. Don is a director and co-founder of the Chicago Indie Critics and a voting member of the Critics Choice Association and the Online Film Critics Society. Consequently, few guests arrive better equipped to grade a movie about winners, losers, and everything in between. The Hoover Family at the Heart of the Little Miss Sunshine PodcastEvery great road movie needs great passengers, and this one has six. The panel starts with the family itself. Richard preaches his nine-step winning program while his own career collapses. Sheryl holds everyone together with fried chicken and sheer will. Frank arrives fresh from a suicide attempt, and Dwayne has taken a vow of silence until he becomes a fighter pilot. Meanwhile, Grandpa coaches Olive's pageant routine with methods no pageant has ever approved. The Little Miss Sunshine podcast crew debates what makes this dysfunction feel so real. Notably, the film establishes the entire family in one legendary twenty-minute dinner scene. The Taste Buds and Don break down how each Hoover carries a private definition of failure. Ultimately, the group asks the big question: is this the best movie family of 2006? Breaking Down the Ending on the Little Miss Sunshine 2006 PodcastYou know the scene. Olive takes the stage at the pageant, "Super Freak" drops, and the movie explodes. The panel dedicates a full segment to one of the most famous endings of the decade. By contrast with the polished pageant contestants, Olive's routine is pure chaos, and the family's response is pure love. The Hoovers stop trying to win and start dancing. Don and the Taste Buds debate whether the finale earns its catharsis or leans on shock value. In addition, the crew discusses how the ending flips the film's winners-and-losers thesis on its head. Does the dance number seal the film's bracket run, or does it divide the panel? The episode holds nothing back. Nietzsche, Proust, and the Philosophy of LosingFew crowd-pleasers smuggle in this much philosophy. Dwayne worships Nietzsche and wears his contempt for conformity on his sleeve, or at least on his t-shirt. Frank, meanwhile, claims the title of preeminent Proust scholar in America. The panel unpacks why Michael Arndt built his comedy on these two thinkers. Frank's hospital-parking-lot speech about suffering becomes the film's secret thesis: the years of struggle are the years that make us. However, the movie never turns into a lecture. Instead, it hides its ideas inside gas station stops and highway breakdowns. The crew debates whether the philosophy holds up or simply decorates the road trip. Specifically, they ask what Nietzsche would think of a nine-step program for winning. The Directors: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie FarisHusband-and-wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris spent decades directing music videos before this debut feature. Their work with bands like The Smashing Pumpkins and R.E.M. sharpened an eye for visual storytelling on tight budgets. As a result, Little Miss Sunshine looks sun-bleached, precise, and effortlessly funny. The panel examines how the duo directs comedy through reaction shots rather than punchlines. The famous bus-pushing sequence becomes a masterclass in physical comedy and ensemble blocking. Additionally, the group traces the pair's later career through Ruby Sparks and Battle of the Sexes. Why did two music video veterans wait so long for a second film? The panel has theories, and some of them are even kind. TriviaNo Movie of the Year episode is complete without Trivia. The Taste Buds and Don test each other on all things Little Miss Sunshine. Production history, casting near-misses, pageant facts, and VW bus mechanics are all fair game. The film's six-year development saga and its record-setting Sundance sale provide plenty of ammunition. Who takes the crown this week? Listen and find out. Rushmore: FashionThis week's Rushmore segment tackles fashion. Each panelist carves their personal Mount Rushmore of movie fashion into the mountainside. Little Miss Sunshine gives the category a strong starting point. Olive's oversized glasses and red cowboy boots, Dwayne's brutal statement tees, and Richard's aggressively beige wardrobe all deserve consideration. Nevertheless, the panel ranges across all of film history for their picks. Expect passionate defenses, questionable taste, and at least one choice that starts an argument. Why Little Miss Sunshine Still MattersTwenty years later, Little Miss Sunshine remains the gold standard for the crowd-pleasing indie. It proved a tiny comedy could outgross blockbusters and crash the Best Picture race. Furthermore, its skepticism about hustle culture and toxic winning has only grown more relevant. Richard's nine steps sound like half the internet in 2026. The film also launched Abigail Breslin, revived Alan Arkin, and showed the world Steve Carell could break hearts. Above all, it argues that losing together beats winning alone. That message keeps the Little Miss Sunshine podcast conversation alive two decades after the bus first rolled. For more from the season, check out the Movie of the Year 2006 intro episode and the 2006 Mixtape. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: A C**k and Bull Story2006 Mixtape Part IAll Movie of the Year Episodes FAQ: Little Miss Sunshine Podcast and FilmWhat is the Little Miss Sunshine podcast episode about? The Taste Buds and guest critic Don Shanahan judge Little Miss Sunshine in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Topics include the Hoover family, the ending, the film's philosophy, and directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris. What is Little Miss Sunshine about? A dysfunctional family drives a broken-down VW bus from New Mexico to California so young Olive can compete in a beauty pageant. Along the way, every member confronts their own definition of failure. Who directed Little Miss Sunshine? Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris directed the film. The married duo made their feature debut after a celebrated career in music videos. Who wrote Little Miss...

Movie of the Year: 2006The Devil Wears Prada (feat. Katie Walsh!)The Devil Wears Prada Podcast Episode: Fashion, Power, and the Best of 2006Welcome to The Devil Wears Prada podcast episode from Movie of the Year: 2006. This week, the Taste Buds enter the gleaming offices of Runway magazine. Furthermore, they bring backup. Film critic Katie Walsh joins Mike, Greg, and Ryan to decide whether David Frankel's fashion-world comedy can survive the 2006 bracket. Along the way, the panel debates feminism in the workplace, the myth of the suffering artist, and the eternal question of Andy's terrible friends. Additionally, the episode features a full Anne Hathaway Career Retrospective bracket. Consequently, this one runs deep on both style and substance. About the FilmThe Devil Wears Prada arrived in the summer of 2006 and promptly stole it. Director David Frankel adapted Lauren Weisberger's bestselling novel about a young journalist grinding through an impossible job. Anne Hathaway stars as Andy Sachs, an aspiring writer who lands a position at Runway magazine. Her boss is Miranda Priestly, the most feared editor in fashion, played by Meryl Streep in an Oscar-nominated performance. Moreover, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci deliver career-launching supporting turns. The film earned over $300 million worldwide and near-universal acclaim. Notably, Roger Ebert praised Streep's icy, understated Miranda as the engine of the whole picture. For more background, the Wikipedia entry on The Devil Wears Prada covers its production and legacy in detail. The film now faces its toughest challenge yet: the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Guest Panelist: Katie WalshThe Devil Wears Prada 2006 podcast episode welcomes a genuine authority to the panel. Katie Walsh is a Los Angeles-based film critic who reviews weekly releases for the Tribune News Service and the Los Angeles Times. Additionally, she serves as Vice President of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. Her writing has appeared in GQ, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, Vulture, Slate, and The Playlist. She co-hosted the podcast Miami Nice and has guest-hosted Switchblade Sisters. Furthermore, she frequently appears on KCRW's Press Play and has taught film criticism at Chapman University's Dodge College of Film and Media Arts. In practice, that means the Taste Buds must actually defend their takes this week. Someone in the room knows what she is talking about. Feminism and the WorkplaceIs Miranda Priestly a feminist icon or a cautionary tale? The panel digs into how the film frames women, power, and ambition. Miranda runs an empire, yet the film punishes her with a collapsing marriage. Meanwhile, Andy gets scolded by nearly everyone for taking her job seriously. The episode asks whether the movie critiques workplace sexism or accidentally reproduces it. Notably, Katie Walsh brings a critic's perspective to how 2006 audiences read Miranda versus how we read her now. Two decades of think pieces have flipped the film's villain into its hero. Ultimately, the panel debates whether that reversal says more about the movie or about us. Can Art Only Come from Suffering?Andy suffers for a job she claims to hate, all in service of her writing dreams. Consequently, the Taste Buds tackle a bigger question: does great art require misery? The film suggests that paying dues at Runway makes Andy a better journalist. However, it also shows the cost. She loses friends, a boyfriend, and nearly herself. The panel weighs the romantic myth of the starving artist against the reality of creative work. By contrast, some of the best art comes from stability, support, and cerulean-blue sweaters chosen by someone else. Above all, this segment asks what we actually owe our ambitions. Andy's Friends: The Worst People in FashionEvery rewatch of The Devil Wears Prada produces the same realization: Andy's friends are monsters. They mock her job, demand free designer swag, and play keep-away with her work phone. Meanwhile, her boyfriend Nate pouts because she missed his birthday party for her career. Therefore, the panel litigates the great question of the film's second act. Are these people grounding Andy in reality, or are they sabotaging her? Specifically, the group ranks the friends from least to most insufferable. Nevertheless, at least one Taste Bud attempts a defense of Nate. It does not go well. Anne Hathaway Career Retrospective: The BracketSpecial segment time. The Devil Wears Prada podcast crew builds a full bracket to determine Anne Hathaway's most iconic role. The field spans her entire career. The Princess Diaries, Brokeback Mountain, Rachel Getting Married, Les Misérables, The Dark Knight Rises, and Interstellar all enter the arena. Additionally, deep cuts and dark horses make surprise appearances. Seeding arguments get heated. Upsets happen. As a result, friendships within the panel are tested. Does Andy Sachs herself take the crown, or does an Oscar-winning turn steal it? You will have to listen to find out. Check Anne Hathaway's full filmography on IMDb and play along at home. Why The Devil Wears Prada Still MattersTwenty years later, The Devil Wears Prada refuses to fade. The film remains a Rosetta Stone for conversations about work, ambition, and the price of excellence. Miranda's cerulean monologue is still the definitive speech about how culture actually functions. Moreover, the movie launched Emily Blunt, redefined Anne Hathaway, and gave Meryl Streep one of her signature roles. A 2026 sequel proved the appetite never left. In addition, the film's questions have only grown sharper in the era of hustle culture and quiet quitting. Is Miranda a monster or simply held to a different standard? Ultimately, that debate keeps the film alive, and it makes for a fierce competitor in the Movie of the Year 2006 tournament. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006Catch up on the season so far, from the 2006 season introduction to the music that defined the year: Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1The 2006 Bracket Reveal: Meet the Sweet 16Tristram Shandy: A C**k and Bull StoryThe 2006 Mixtape, Part IAll Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: The Devil Wears Prada Podcast and FilmWhat is this episode of The Devil Wears Prada podcast about? The Taste Buds and critic Katie Walsh debate whether The Devil Wears Prada deserves to advance in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Topics include workplace feminism, art and suffering, Andy's awful friends, and a full Anne Hathaway career bracket. What is The Devil Wears Prada about? Aspiring journalist Andy Sachs takes a job assisting Miranda Priestly, the tyrannical editor of Runway magazine. Consequently, Andy must decide how much of herself she will trade for success. Who directed The Devil Wears Prada? David Frankel directed the film. He later directed Marley & Me and worked extensively on Sex and the City. Aline Brosh McKenna wrote the screenplay from Lauren Weisberger's novel. Who stars in The Devil Wears Prada? Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, and Stanley Tucci lead the cast. Streep earned an Academy Award nomination for playing Miranda Priestly. More Questions About The Devil Wears PradaIs Miranda Priestly based on Anna Wintour? Widely, yes. Author Lauren Weisberger worked as an assistant to Vogue editor Anna Wintour, and Miranda is broadly understood as her fictional counterpart. However, Streep has said she modeled the performance on powerful men she knew rather than on Wintour. Who is the guest on this episode? Film critic Katie Walsh joins the panel. She reviews films for the Tribune News Service and the Los Angeles Times and serves as Vice President of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. What is the Anne Hathaway Career Retrospective? It is a bracket-style special segment. The panel seeds Anne Hathaway's most famous roles against each other and votes round by round until one iconic performance remains. Why does The Devil Wears Prada still matter? The film remains the defining movie about ambition, mentorship, and toxic workplaces. Moreover, its cultural conversation keeps evolving, as the 2026 sequel proved.