Movie of the Year

YourPopFilter.com
  • 4.4 (14)
  • Film Reviews
  • Updated Weekly

Movie of the Year is on the hunt to find the best film of each and every year, in the only way that matters: brackets. Join Greg, Mike, and Ryan, as they discuss what makes a film matter now vs when it came out. There will be games. There will be drinks. There will be points. There will only be one Movie of the Year. ", "Movie of the Year is on the hunt to find the best film of each and every year, in the only way that matters: brackets. Join Greg, Mike, and Ryan, as they discuss what makes a film matter now vs when it came out. There will be games. There will be drinks. There will be points. There will only be one Movie of the Year.

  1. 4d ago

    2006 - Stranger Than Fiction

    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...

  2. Aug 27

    2006 - The Action Figure Draft, Part II

    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?

  3. Aug 20

    2006 - The Action Figure Draft

    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

  4. Aug 13

    2006 - Volver (feat. Inkoo Kang from The New Yorker)

    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...

  5. Aug 6

    2006 - Borat

    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...

  6. Jul 30

    2006 - The Prestige (feat. Kenny McMillan from the Frame and Reference pod!)

    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...

  7. Jul 23

    2006 - Little Miss Sunshine (feat Don Shanahan from Every Movie Has a Lesson!)

    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...

  8. Jul 16

    2006 - The Devil Wears Prada (feat. Katie Walsh!)

    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.

See All (214)

4.4
out of 5
14 Ratings

About

Movie of the Year is on the hunt to find the best film of each and every year, in the only way that matters: brackets. Join Greg, Mike, and Ryan, as they discuss what makes a film matter now vs when it came out. There will be games. There will be drinks. There will be points. There will only be one Movie of the Year. ", "Movie of the Year is on the hunt to find the best film of each and every year, in the only way that matters: brackets. Join Greg, Mike, and Ryan, as they discuss what makes a film matter now vs when it came out. There will be games. There will be drinks. There will be points. There will only be one Movie of the Year.

Information

  • Creator
    YourPopFilter.com
  • Years Active
    2018 - 2026
  • Episodes
    214
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © 2022 Movie of the Year
  • Show Website
    Movie of the Year

You Might Also Like