Mato just raised pre-seed Read more
Podcast charts
Published by YourPopFilter.com
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.
On the charts
Every published chart this podcast appears in, in the snapshot behind this page. Each one links to the chart it came off.
The Mato Topic Intelligence Platform does not report this podcast as charting in a published category in this snapshot.
From the feed
The latest episodes published to this podcast’s own RSS feed. Titles and descriptions are the publisher’s.
Movie of the Year: 2006 Children of Men The Children of Men Podcast from Movie of the Year The 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 Episode About Children of Men (2006) Cuarón and Camerawork Theo and Nigel The Future Is Now I Never Metacritic I Didn't Like Dream Blunt Rotation Why Children of Men Still Matters Related Episodes FAQ 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 Long Few 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 World Theo 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 2027 Here 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 Like Our 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 Over Welcome 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 Film Casino 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 Tuxedo The 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 Royale Eva 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 Poker The 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 2006 Every 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 Trivia The 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 Matters Nearly 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: 2006 Enjoyed the Casino Royale podcast? These earlier 2006 episodes set the table. Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1 Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal 2006 Mixtape Part I <a...
Movie of the Year: 2006 Stranger Than Fiction Stranger than Fiction Podcast: Harold Crick Hears a Narrator This 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 Film Harold 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 Tubi Ceci 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 Straight The 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 Ana Second, 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 2006 The 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 Prostars Finally, 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 Matters Twenty 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: 2006 Movie of the Year 2006 Intro, Part 1 The 2006 Bracket Reveal 2006 Mixtape, Part I Little Miss Sunshine All Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: Stranger than Fiction Podcast and Film What 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: 2006 The Action Figure Draft, Part II The 2006 Action Figures Part 2 Draft Continues The 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 Works For 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 Figures Part 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 Matters The 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: 2006 Action Figure Draft Part 1 2006 Intro Part 1 2006 Bracket Reveal Movie of the Year Podcast Archive FAQ: 2006 Action Figures Part 2 What 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: 2006 The Action Figure Draft The Challenge: Drafting 2006 Action Figures Drafting 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 Episode The 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: Taylor Taylor 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: Nate Nate 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 Explained The 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 Matters Action 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: 2006 Movie of the Year: 2006 Podcast Intro – Start your 2006 journey with the season setup Movies of 2006 Bracket Reveal – Discover the full tournament structure 2006 Mixtape Part I – Explore films that didn't crack the main bracket Movie of the Year Archives – Browse all seasons and episodes FAQ: Action Figure Draft Podcast and 2006 Collectibles What 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: 2006 Volver The Volver Podcast Episode Enters the Bracket The 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 Film Volver 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 Kang Inkoo 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 Podcast Volver 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 Podcast Every 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 Volver The 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 Girls Penélope 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 Podcast The 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 Matters Volver 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: 2006 Movies of 2006: Intro Part 1 2006 Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16 Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story 2006 Mixtape Part I 2006 Mixtape Part II Brick The Puffy Chair The Devil Wears Prada Little Miss Sunshine The Prestige Borat All Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: Volver Podcast and Film What 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: 2006 Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan The Borat Podcast Phenomenon: Satire, Shock Value, and Staying Power The 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 Film Directed 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 Impact At 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 Fame The 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 Matters Fifteen 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: 2006 Movie of the Year 2006: Podcast Intro, Part 1 Movie of the Year 2006: Bracket Reveal 2006 Mixtape, Part 1 All Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: Borat Podcast and Film What 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: 2006 The Prestige (feat. Kenny McMillan from the Frame and Reference pod!) The Prestige Podcast: Nolan's Obsession with Magic, Ambition, and Deception The 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 Prestige The 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 Misdirection Christopher 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 Obsession At 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 Deception The 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 '96 The 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 Cinema The 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 Cock 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 Endure Twenty 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: 2006 2006 Intro Part 1: Bracket Reveal Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story Brick 2006 Mixtape Part I The Puffy Chair The Devil Wears Prada Little Miss Sunshine All Movie of the Year Episodes Guest Panelist: Kenny McMillan Kenny 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: 2006 Little Miss Sunshine (feat. Don Shanahan from Every Movie Has a Lesson!) Little Miss Sunshine Podcast: The Hoovers Hit the Bracket The 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 Film Little 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 Shanahan The 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 Podcast Every 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 Podcast You 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 Losing Few 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 Faris Husband-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. Trivia No 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: Fashion This 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 Matters Twenty 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: 2006 Movie of the Year 2006: Intro Part 1 Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16 Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story 2006 Mixtape Part I All Movie of the Year Episodes FAQ: Little Miss Sunshine Podcast and Film What 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: 2006 The Devil Wears Prada (feat. Katie Walsh!) The Devil Wears Prada Podcast Episode: Fashion, Power, and the Best of 2006 Welcome 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 Film The 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 Walsh The 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 Workplace Is 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 Fashion Every 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 Bracket Special 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 Matters Twenty 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: 2006 Catch 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 1 The 2006 Bracket Reveal: Meet the Sweet 16 Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story The 2006 Mixtape, Part I All Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: The Devil Wears Prada Podcast and Film What 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 Prada Is 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.
Movie of the Year: 2006 The Puffy Chair The Puffy Chair Podcast Hits the Road The Puffy Chair podcast episode sends the Taste Buds on a road trip through the Duplass brothers' scrappy 2006 breakout. Ryan, Mike, and Greg buckle up to decide whether this mumblecore landmark deserves a deep run in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket . Moreover, they bring serious backup this week. Critic and author Keith Phipps joins the panel to help unpack a movie made for the price of a used car. Together, the group digs into fragile relationships, DIY filmmaking, and one very symbolic recliner. Can a $15,000 indie outmuscle the blockbusters of 2006? Press play and ride along. About the Film The Puffy Chair follows Josh, a struggling New York booking agent played by Mark Duplass. Josh wins an eBay auction for a burgundy recliner that matches the one his dad owned years ago. Consequently, he plans a road trip to deliver the chair as a birthday gift. His girlfriend Emily, played by Katie Aselton, comes along for the ride. His free-spirited brother Rhett, played by Rhett Wilkins, joins them on the way. Naturally, the trip tests every relationship in the van. Jay Duplass directed the film, which he created with his brother Mark. The brothers shot it for roughly $15,000 borrowed from their parents, and the cast earned $100 a day. The movie premiered at Sundance in January 2005 and later won the Audience Award at South by Southwest. Roadside Attractions and Netflix released it theatrically on June 2, 2006. As a result, it qualifies for our 2006 bracket, and it arrives with real critical pedigree. Check the full credits at IMDb and the reviews roundup at Metacritic . New to the season? Start with our Movie of the Year 2006 introduction . Guest Panelist: Keith Phipps Keith Phipps brings nearly three decades of film criticism to the panel this week. He joined The A.V. Club in 1997 and became its editor in 2004, helping build it into a cultural institution. Later, he co-founded the beloved film site The Dissolve and served as editorial director for film and TV at Uproxx. His byline has appeared in Rolling Stone, Slate, GQ, Vulture, and The New York Times, among many others. Currently, he writes The Reveal , a film newsletter he created with longtime collaborator Scott Tobias. He also co-hosts The Next Picture Show, a biweekly podcast in the Filmspotting family that pairs classic films with modern successors. Additionally, Phipps wrote the acclaimed book Age of Cage: Four Decades of Hollywood Through One Singular Career, an NPR Books We Love selection. Few guests know indie film history better, so the Taste Buds put him straight to work. Josh and Emily (and Rhett) Every road movie needs passengers, and this one packs the van with tension. The panel starts with Josh and Emily, a couple fluent in baby talk but allergic to honest conversation. Their relationship anchors the film, and the podcast crew debates whether Josh ranks among 2006's most frustrating boyfriends. Emily wants commitment and emotional validation. Josh wants to deliver a chair and dodge every hard question along the way. Meanwhile, Rhett climbs aboard and scrambles the whole dynamic. His impulsive romanticism works as comic relief, yet it also lights the fuse under Josh and Emily's slow-motion breakup. Keith Phipps helps the Taste Buds weigh how the improvised performances make these fights feel painfully real. Ultimately, the group asks a simple question. Do we root for this couple, or do we root for the exits? Filmmaking Style on The Puffy Chair 2006 Podcast Style takes center stage in the second discussion topic. The Duplass brothers shot with handheld cameras, natural light, and a whole lot of improvisation. Critics soon filed the film under mumblecore, a label built on low budgets, naturalistic dialogue, and twentysomething malaise. However, the panel debates whether that label helps or flattens the movie. The Puffy Chair podcast crew also examines the famous snap zooms, the cramped framing, and the brothers' choice to cast their actual parents. Furthermore, Phipps places the film within the mid-2000s indie boom that he covered firsthand as a critic. The $15,000 budget becomes a character in itself. Does the rough look create intimacy, or does it simply look cheap? Notably, the panel connects this DIY approach to the music of the era covered in our 2006 Mixtape Part I . The Chair What about the recliner itself? The chair works as the film's MacGuffin, its symbol, and arguably its best supporting player. Josh buys it because it resembles the chair from his childhood living room. Therefore, the purchase says less about his dad and more about Josh's own nostalgia. The panel unpacks what the chair represents: arrested development, misplaced sentimentality, and the gap between a grand gesture and genuine care. Along the journey, the chair suffers indignities that mirror the crumbling relationships around it. By contrast, the film's quietest moments reveal what an honest gift might have looked like. The Taste Buds and Keith Phipps debate whether the chair earns its title billing. No spoilers here, though. The chair's final fate stays a surprise for listeners. Genre Blast The episode also features a Genre Blast segment, a PopFilter favorite. The Taste Buds zoom out from the film and blast through its genre lineage. Is The Puffy Chair a road movie, a romantic comedy, a breakup drama, or the founding text of mumblecore? Each label carries its own history, and the panel traces them all. Specifically, the crew connects the film to decades of American road pictures and indie relationship stories. Keith Phipps adds critical context from his years covering the movement's rise and fall. Listen to the full episode to hear where the genre conversation lands. Why The Puffy Chair Still Matters Twenty years later, this tiny film casts a surprisingly long shadow. The Duplass brothers parlayed it into a remarkable career spanning Cyrus, Safety Not Guaranteed, Togetherness, and Room 104. Mark Duplass and Katie Aselton became one of indie film's great creative couples. Meanwhile, the movie's distribution deal made history of its own. Netflix co-released it theatrically in 2006, an early experiment that hinted at the streaming future to come. The mumblecore movement it helped launch reshaped American independent film and influenced a generation of DIY creators. Above all, The Puffy Chair podcast conversation proves the film still sparks real debate. Its questions about commitment, communication, and growing up have not aged a day. The AFI Catalog preserves the film's place in the historical record. Our bracket will decide its place in 2006. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006 Movie of the Year: 2006 Intro Part 1 Movies of 2006 Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16 Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story 2006 Mixtape Part I All Movie of the Year Episodes FAQ: The Puffy Chair Podcast and Film What is The Puffy Chair podcast episode about? The Puffy Chair podcast episode features the Taste Buds and guest Keith Phipps evaluating the Duplass brothers' 2006 film for the Movie of the Year bracket. Topics include the Josh and Emily relationship, the film's mumblecore style, the symbolism of the chair, and a Genre Blast segment. What is The Puffy Chair about? The film follows Josh, who wins an eBay auction for a recliner matching his dad's old chair. He road-trips to deliver it as a birthday gift, joined by his girlfriend Emily and his brother Rhett. Consequently, the journey exposes every crack in their relationships. Who directed The Puffy Chair? Jay Duplass directed the film, which he made with his brother Mark Duplass, who wrote, produced, and starred. Many sources credit the brothers as a filmmaking team, and the movie launched their careers. Who stars in The Puffy Chair? Mark Duplass stars as Josh, Katie Aselton plays Emily, and Rhett Wilkins plays Rhett. Notably, the Duplass brothers' real parents appear as Josh's parents. Is The Puffy Chair a mumblecore movie? Yes, critics widely consider it a founding film of the mumblecore movement. Its low budget, improvised dialogue, and naturalistic performances defined the style. However, the Duplass brothers have expressed mixed feelings about the label, a tension the episode explores. How much did The Puffy Chair cost to make? The
Movie of the Year: 2006 Mixtape, Part II The 2006 Mixtape Part 2 Podcast Finishes the Playlist The 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast picks up exactly where Part I left off. The full five person panel returns to finish what they started: a definitive, collectively built playlist of the best songs of 2006. Ryan, Mike, and Greg, the Taste Buds behind Movie of the Year, are once again joined by guests Nate Ragolia and Taylor Wilhite. Consequently, the debates get sharper as the remaining playlist slots get scarcer. Part I established the ground rules and the early picks. Now, in Part 2, the panel faces the harder half of the job. The obvious anthems are gone. Therefore, every remaining selection demands a real argument, a defense of taste, and a willingness to absorb four rounds of pushback. How the 2006 Mixtape Podcast Format Works The Mixtape episodes mark a deliberate departure from the standard Movie of the Year format. Normally, the show runs films through a bracket, as it did in the 2006 bracket reveal . The Mixtape works differently. Each panelist adds one song per round to a shared playlist. There are no eliminations and no head to head matchups. Instead, the tension comes from scarcity and pride. Every pick claims a slot that another panelist wanted. Moreover, every pick invites immediate judgment from the rest of the table. The format rewards conviction above all. A safe choice earns shrugs. A bold choice, defended well, earns respect. In practice, the round-robin structure turns a simple playlist into a portrait of five distinct musical sensibilities colliding in real time. Guest Panelists: Nate Ragolia and Taylor Wilhite Nate Ragolia returns for the second half of the Mixtape. Nate co-hosts Debut Buddies, a podcast dedicated to firsts of all kinds, and he has authored three published books. His background as a writer and critic gives his picks analytical weight. Additionally, he arrives with the confidence of someone who has already survived one full round of Taste Bud scrutiny in Part I. Taylor Wilhite also returns to complete the panel. Taylor is a former PopFilter mainstay whose appearances are now rare, which gives the Mixtape episodes a sense of occasion. Longtime listeners know his taste and his willingness to fight for it. Together, the two guests expand the show's usual trio into a five voice ensemble. As a result, the playlist reflects a far wider slice of 2006 than any single host could deliver. The Music of 2006, Revisited The year 2006 offered an unusually rich field for a project like this. Pop radio belonged to Justin Timberlake, Beyonce, and Rihanna. Meanwhile, Gnarls Barkley's Crazy became an inescapable cultural event. Emo and pop-punk hit a commercial peak, hip-hop delivered landmark records, and indie rock crossed over to mainstream ears. The full sweep of the year is documented at Wikipedia's 2006 in music page, and it is staggering in retrospect. Movie of the Year usually spends its energy on cinema, the kind of work chronicled at RogerEbert.com . However, the Mixtape episodes prove the same critical instincts apply to music. The panel treats each song the way the show treats films like Brick or Tristram Shandy : with curiosity, skepticism, and a genuine desire to figure out what holds up twenty years later. Completing the Playlist Part 2 covers the closing rounds of the mixtape. The panel works through the final picks, and the stakes rise with every turn. Notably, the late rounds force each panelist to confront what the playlist still lacks. Does it need another ballad? Another guitar record? Another undeniable radio smash? Each answer reshapes the final product. The completed tracklist stays a surprise until you press play. No spoilers here. Nevertheless, expect passionate defenses, at least one pick that baffles the room, and the special satisfaction of hearing a playlist snap into its final form. By the end, the panel delivers a mixtape that could only exist through this exact collision of five sensibilities. Why the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 Podcast Still Matters The 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast completes the season's most distinctive experiment. The Movie of the Year season began with the 2006 intro episode and a field of 128 films. The Mixtape widens that lens. It argues that a year of culture includes its soundtrack, and that the songs of 2006 shaped memory just as powerfully as its movies did. Above all, the episode captures why list making endures as a critical exercise. A playlist forces choices, and choices reveal values. Ultimately, the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast delivers both a finished tracklist and a spirited argument about what deserves to last. Subscribe, listen to both parts, and then build your own version. Yours will differ, and that is exactly the point. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006 2006 Mixtape, Part I Movie of the Year: 2006 Intro, Part 1 Movies of 2006: Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16 Tristram Shandy: Movie of the Year 2006 Brick: Movie of the Year 2006 Browse All Movie of the Year Episodes FAQ: 2006 Mixtape Part 2 Podcast About the Episode What is the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast about? The 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast is the concluding half of a special Movie of the Year episode. The five person panel of Ryan, Mike, Greg, Nate Ragolia, and Taylor Wilhite finishes building a collective playlist of the best songs of 2006, one pick at a time. Do I need to listen to Part I first? Listening to Part I first is recommended. Part I establishes the format, introduces the panel, and covers the opening rounds. Part 2 continues directly from that point and completes the tracklist. Who are the guests on the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast? Nate Ragolia and Taylor Wilhite return for Part 2. Nate Ragolia co-hosts the Debut Buddies podcast and has authored three published books. Taylor Wilhite is a former PopFilter regular who now makes occasional guest appearances. About the Mixtape and the Music How does the Mixtape format work on Movie of the Year? Each panelist takes turns adding one song per round to a shared 2006 playlist. There is no bracket and no eliminations. Every pick must survive the scrutiny of four other panelists with strong opinions about the music of 2006. What songs are on the 2006 mixtape? The full tracklist stays a surprise until you hear the episodes. The picks span pop, hip-hop, indie rock, R&B, and the emo and pop-punk wave that defined 2006 radio. Listen to both parts to hear every selection and the arguments behind them. Who are the Taste Buds? The Taste Buds are Ryan, Mike, and Greg, the three core hosts of Movie of the Year on the PopFilter network. Each season they run a bracket style competition to crown the best film of a single year. The current season covers 2006. What were the biggest songs of 2006? 2006 produced era defining hits like Gnarls Barkley's Crazy, Justin Timberlake's SexyBack, and Beyonce's Irreplaceable. The year also marked a commercial peak for emo and pop-punk. The Mixtape episodes dig into which songs actually deserve playlist immortality. Where can I listen to the 2006 Mixtape Part 2 podcast? You can stream the episode right on this page using the player above. Movie of the Year is also available on all major podcast platforms through the PopFilter network.
Movie of the Year: 2006 Mixtape, Part I The 2006 Mixtape Podcast Kicks Off — One Song at a Time The 2006 Mixtape podcast episode is unlike anything else in the Movie of the Year catalog. Instead of debating a single film, Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome two special guests — Nate Ragolia of Debut Buddies and longtime PopFilter friend Taylor Wilhite — for a round-robin music showcase that captures the full, chaotic glory of 2006's soundscape. Each panelist takes a turn placing one song into a collective playlist, building something that is part argument, part love letter, and part time machine back to a genuinely strange year in pop culture. 2006 was a transitional moment in popular music. Rap remained dominant, but with several megastars between album cycles, the charts opened up to a remarkably diverse mix of genres. Moreover, pop-punk and emo were infiltrating the mainstream at full speed. Additionally, R&B, dancehall, and indie rock were all jostling for space on the same playlists. The result was a year where "SexyBack," "Hips Don't Lie," "I Write Sins Not Tragedies," and "Dani California" could all feel equally essential — and equally of the moment. Consequently, building a 2006 mixtape is less a curation exercise and more a negotiation, which is exactly what makes this episode so much fun. Tune in for Part I of the 2006 Mixtape on the Movie of the Year 2006 podcast, and find out whose taste holds up, whose picks land with a thud, and which songs define the year better than any film ever could. About the 2006 Mixtape Format The Mixtape episode breaks from the standard Movie of the Year formula in the best possible way. Rather than a single film under the microscope, the full panel of five — Ryan, Mike, Greg, Nate, and Taylor — each take turns contributing one song per round to a shared playlist. The songs land wherever they land: the bracket, the conversation, the collective memory. No rules govern the selection beyond personal conviction and a willingness to defend the pick. The format rewards both champions of the obvious and advocates for the overlooked. Someone will inevitably go for the consensus anthem. Someone else will go deep on an album cut that never charted but defined their year. Furthermore, disagreements are baked in. Five people with five different relationships to the music of 2006 means that every pick is a small act of argument — an assertion about what mattered and why. Part I covers the opening rounds of that playlist construction. Part II will follow, continuing the conversation and expanding the tracklist. Together, they form a two-part portrait of a year in music told through the ears of five people who were living it. Guest Panelists: Nate Ragolia and Taylor Wilhite Nate Ragolia is a freelance writer, editor, published author, voice over artist, and podcaster based in the PopFilter extended universe. He co-hosts Debut Buddies , a fortnightly podcast dedicated to firsts — debut albums, premiere episodes, inaugural seasons, the first of anything worth examining. Co-hosted with Kelly Attaway and Chelsea Hollander, Debut Buddies has built a devoted audience by taking the concept of beginnings seriously and hilariously. Nate is also the author of three books: There You Feel Free (2015), The Retroactivist (2019), and One Person Can't Make a Difference (2022). He brings to the Mixtape episode both the analytical rigor of someone who thinks carefully about cultural artifacts and the genuine enthusiasm of a lifelong music fan. Taylor Wilhite is a familiar voice to longtime PopFilter listeners. A former mainstay of the network, Taylor steps back into the booth for this special occasion — one of his rare guest appearances since stepping back from regular podcasting. His history with the PopFilter crew means he arrives fully acclimated to the energy, the arguments, and the particular pleasure of five people trying to out-taste each other in real time. His presence makes Part I feel like a reunion as much as a music show. Building the Playlist: Round by Round Each round of the 2006 Mixtape follows the same structure: one panelist, one song, one chance to make the case. The picks accumulate into something that starts to resemble an actual playlist — though a playlist with a lot of disagreement baked into its sequencing. 2006 was the kind of year where the argument over what belongs is genuinely interesting. The Billboard charts were dominated by Daniel Powter's "Bad Day," Sean Paul's "Temperature," and Justin Timberlake's "SexyBack." However, the year also produced landmark indie and alternative releases, left-field hip-hop moments, and a wave of pop-punk anthems that hit a specific generation square in the chest. Notably, the question of which songs were great versus which songs were simply inescapable is a distinction worth debating — and this episode debates it at length. As a result, the round-by-round format becomes a kind of stress test for taste. Each pick either extends the playlist's internal logic or breaks it, and the panel's reactions reveal as much about their musical identities as about the songs themselves. Part I lays the groundwork for what promises to be a contentious and deeply enjoyable full tracklist. Why 2006's Music Deserves a Closer Listen It is easy to dismiss the music of 2006 as a transitional era — neither the peak years of hip-hop's commercial dominance nor the coming digital disruption that would reshape the industry within a few years. Nevertheless, that framing undersells how much was actually happening. Beyoncé released B'Day . The Raconteurs debuted. Stadium Arcadium by the Red Hot Chili Peppers dropped as a double album. FutureSex/LoveSounds by Justin Timberlake redefined what a mainstream pop record could sound like. Above all, 2006 was the last full year before the iPhone and streaming would begin to permanently reorganize how people discovered and consumed music. In practice, this means the mixtape as a cultural object — physical or digital — still carried enormous weight. A playlist in 2006 was still a statement, still a gift, still a way of saying something about who you were and what you cared about. Therefore, building a 2006 mixtape now is an act of archaeology as much as curation, and the Movie of the Year crew approaches it with exactly the right combination of nostalgia and rigor. Meanwhile, the Mixtape format itself reflects something true about the show: Movie of the Year has always been as much about the people doing the talking as about the films under discussion. Bringing in Nate Ragolia and Taylor Wilhite expands that conversation in ways that a single-film episode simply cannot. The result is one of the most purely enjoyable episodes in the 2006 season. Why the 2006 Mixtape Podcast Still Matters The mixtape as a format has never really gone away. Streaming playlists are its digital descendants, and the impulse behind them — the desire to arrange songs into an argument about feeling and meaning — is as alive now as it was when people were still burning CDs. The 2006 Mixtape episode taps into that impulse directly, using the year's music as a lens for understanding both the culture of 2006 and the tastes of the five people assembled to discuss it. Specifically, the episode works because it trusts its panelists. Nate Ragolia's credentials as a critic and author give his picks analytical weight. Taylor Wilhite's history with PopFilter gives the episode a sense of occasion. And the core Taste Buds — Ryan, Mike, and Greg — provide the continuity and argumentative energy that listeners have come to expect from the 2006 season. Together, they make a compelling case that the music of 2006 is worth revisiting, debating, and yes, assembling into a playlist — even twenty years later. Ultimately, the 2006 Mixtape podcast is the season's most distinctive episode, and Part I is where it all begins. Subscribe, listen, and start forming your own opinions about what should have made the cut. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006 Movie of the Year: 2006 — Intro Part 1 Movies of 2006 — Bracket Reveal and Sweet 16 Tristram Shandy — Movie of the Year: 2006 Brick — Movie of the Year: 2006 Browse All Movie of the Year Episodes FAQ: 2006 Mixtape Podcast — Part I About the Episode What is the 2006 Mixtape podcast episode about? The 2006 Mixtape, Part I is a special episode of Movie of the Year in which the full five-person panel — Ryan, Mike, Greg, Nate Ragolia, and Taylor Wilhite — take turns contributing songs to a shared 2006 playlist. Each round features one pick per panelist, building a collective mixtape that reflects the full range of the year's music while generating plenty of debate along the way. Who are the guests on the 2006 Mixtape episode? The episode features two special guests. Nate Ragolia is the co-host of Debut Buddies, a podcast about firsts,...
Movie of the Year: 2006 Brick The Brick podcast episode of Movie of the Year arrives just in time to appreciate one of 2006's most audacious genre experiments. Ryan, Mike, and Greg are joined by Pete Wright of TruStory FM to dig into Rian Johnson's neo-noir debut, a film that transplants the hard-boiled world of Dashiell Hammett into the hallways and parking lots of a Southern California high school. Few films from this era take a bigger swing, and fewer still land it this cleanly. About Brick (2006) Brick is a neo-noir mystery thriller written, edited, and directed by Rian Johnson in his feature directorial debut. The film opened in New York and Los Angeles on April 7, 2006, distributed by Focus Features. It stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Brendan Frye, a teenage loner who pushes his way into the criminal underworld of his high school to investigate the disappearance -- and eventual murder -- of his ex-girlfriend Emily, played by Emilie de Ravin. The supporting cast includes Lukas Haas as the drug kingpin known only as the Pin, Nora Zehetner as the duplicitous Laura, Noah Fleiss as the enforcer Tug, and Richard Roundtree as a vice principal navigating the chaos from the margins. Johnson wrote the first draft in 1997 immediately after graduating from USC School of Cinematic Arts. He spent the next seven years trying to get it made, with every financier asking him to set it in college instead of high school. He ultimately raised approximately $450,000 from friends and family, shot the film in 20 days, and spent three months rehearsing with the cast beforehand. The score -- inventive and deeply atmospheric -- was composed by Johnson's cousin Nathan Johnson using traditional instruments alongside improvised ones including filing cabinets, kitchen utensils, and tack pianos, all recorded on an Apple PowerBook. The film drew on hardboiled classics, particularly the novels of Dashiell Hammett, and won the Special Jury Prize for Originality of Vision at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival. It holds an 80% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and earned three stars from Roger Ebert, who called it a rich source of dialogue and behavior. You can read Ebert's full review at RogerEbert.com . Brick has since become a cult classic and a clear blueprint for Johnson's later work on Knives Out. Find the full cast and crew listing at Brick on IMDb . Guest Panelist: Pete Wright Pete Wright is a podcaster, author, educator, and co-founder of TruStory FM , a podcast production network he has built over more than three decades in media. He has logged thousands of episodes across more than three dozen shows covering film, ADHD, creative process, brand storytelling, and the craft of audio production. His work spans journalism, corporate communications, and graduate-level teaching, where he spent fifteen years working with students on storytelling and media production. Among his best-known projects is The Next Reel Film Podcast, a deep-dive film discussion series that serves as his primary film-critical home. He also co-hosts Taking Control: The ADHD Podcast alongside Nikki Kinzer, an award-winning show with over a million annual downloads and 29 seasons of episodes since its 2010 launch. In 2024, Pete and Nikki co-authored Unapologetically ADHD: A Step-by-Step Framework for Everyday Planning on Your Terms , a practical guide grown directly from the podcast's community and themes. His debut science fiction novella, Lattice , was published in 2026. Pete's most recent podcast venture is Headstone, a personal series about legacy, memory, and the stories we leave behind. He is based in Portland, Oregon. This Brick podcast episode marks his first appearance on Movie of the Year. Brick Podcast Discussion: Noir in High School The central creative gamble of Brick is not simply that it applies film noir conventions to a high school setting. More precisely, it applies them without irony. Johnson made a deliberate choice to play every scene completely straight, and the cast follows his lead without a single wink at the camera. Consequently, the absurdity of the premise becomes the engine of the film's tension rather than its release valve. This Brick podcast opens with a foundational question: does the noir-in-high-school conceit actually work? The genre's grammar depends heavily on power asymmetry, corruption, and the lone investigator operating outside institutional structures. High school provides all three. Brendan's relationship with the vice principal mirrors the classic detective's uneasy truce with law enforcement. The Pin's basement headquarters functions as the smoky back room. The femme fatale and the enforcer play their archetypal roles without adjustment. Johnson drew specifically on the novels of Dashiell Hammett -- particularly the Continental Op stories -- and encouraged his cast to read Hammett rather than watch noir films. He wanted the stylistic choices to come from the source material, not from imitation of existing screen adaptations. That decision gives Brick a distinctive texture. Moreover, the dialogue mixes actual period noir slang with invented high school vernacular in a way that creates its own self-consistent world. As Roger Ebert noted, the story never fully clarifies itself while it unfolds, but it delivers a rich supply of behavior and incident along the way. Genre Bending: What the Brick 2006 Film Is Actually Doing Brick belongs to a specific 2006 moment when genre recombination was operating at a high creative pitch. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang had landed the previous year playing similar games with noir self-awareness. Sin City had arrived with a maximalist visual approach to the same source material. Brick chose a third path: minimal budget, straight-faced commitment, and an insistence that the formal constraints of the genre could do meaningful emotional work if you simply trusted them. The genre-bending discussion on this Brick podcast examines how Johnson uses the noir framework not as homage but as architecture. The structure of a hardboiled mystery -- the inciting mystery, the series of contacts, the betrayal, the revelation -- maps onto adolescent social hierarchies with surprising precision. Furthermore, the paranoia endemic to the genre translates naturally into the heightened social surveillance of high school life, where everyone watches everyone and information is currency. The Spaghetti Western and Anime Influences Johnson has cited Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns and Shinichiro Watanabe's Cowboy Bebop as visual influences alongside the noir literary tradition. That combination matters, because it explains why Brick never feels purely retro. The film's rhythm and its relationship to violence carry a different energy than classic noir. Notably, Johnson used shoes as a design element for each character, treating footwear as an immediate visual shorthand for who each person is. It's a small detail that reflects how thoroughly he thought through every layer of the film's visual language. Additionally, the score by Nathan Johnson uses invented instruments -- wine-o-phones, tack pianos, kitchen utensils -- to create an atmosphere that nods to classic noir without reproducing it. The result is a film that works as genre exercise, coming-of-age story, and tone poem simultaneously. The Treatment of Women in Brick Noir has always had a complicated relationship with its female characters, and Brick inherits that complication without fully interrogating it. Emily exists primarily as a body -- a mystery to be solved, a loss to be avenged. She drives the entire plot but occupies very little of the film's actual screen time. Laura is more present, but her function remains rooted in the femme fatale archetype: beautiful, manipulative, ultimately revealed as the architect of the tragedy. The Brick podcast addresses this directly. Does Johnson's decision to play the genre completely straight mean he also reproduces its blind spots uncritically? The case for the defense is that Brick is a formal exercise, and the female characters serve genre functions that the film deliberately signals as such. The case against is that signaling an archetype and interrogating it are different things, and Brick largely declines to do the latter. Moreover, the pregnancy subplot -- Emily is pregnant with Tug's child, a revelation that triggers her murder -- adds a layer of consequence to the female characters' bodies that the film handles with notable brevity. It functions as a plot mechanism more than a human reality. The discussion examines how this choice shapes the film's emotional center, which ultimately rests entirely with Brendan's grief and not with Emily's life or Laura's survival. Nevertheless, Nora Zehetner's performance as Laura earns genuine complexity within the constraints the script gives her. The hosts explore whether that performance transcends the archetype or simply executes it with exceptional skill. Rushmore: 2006 It Boys The Taste Buds carve out space in this episode for a Rushmore segment dedicated to the It Boys of 2006 -- the young male actors whose stars were ascending in that specific cultural moment. Brick arrives at a fascinating point in Joseph Gordon-Levitt's career trajectory, before Inception and The Dark Knight Rises made him a mainstream anchor, when he was still operating in the cult-film
Movie of the Year: 2006 Slither The Slither Podcast Brings Body Horror to the 2006 Bracket The Slither podcast episode unleashes the first true horror movie on our Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. After opening the season with Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story , the Taste Buds trade metafiction for meteorites. Consequently, things get slimy fast. Ryan, Mike, and Greg welcome producer and festival programmer Drea Clark to dig into James Gunn's gleefully gross directorial debut. Together, the panel asks whether a movie full of alien slugs deserves a deep run in the bracket. Above all, they ask whether Slither has more on its mind than exploding deer and tentacled husbands. About the Film Slither is a 2006 science fiction horror comedy written and directed by James Gunn. A meteorite crashes outside the small town of Wheelsy, South Carolina, carrying an alien parasite. The parasite infects wealthy local Grant Grant, played with squirming brilliance by Michael Rooker. Soon, Grant transforms into a tentacled monster, and slug-like creatures spread through the town. Meanwhile, police chief Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) and Grant's wife Starla (Elizabeth Banks) try to stop the invasion. Universal released the film on March 31, 2006. Notably, it flopped at the box office, grossing under $13 million against a $15 million budget. However, critics largely embraced it. Roger Ebert praised its Troma-loving spirit in his RogerEbert.com review , and the film became a cult favorite on home video. In addition, it launched the directing career that eventually gave us Guardians of the Galaxy and the new DC Universe. Guest Panelist: Drea Clark This week the Taste Buds welcome Drea Clark, a true film industry polymath. Drea co-hosts Maximum Film! on the Maximum Fun network, the long-running movie podcast she shares with film critic Alonso Duralde. Furthermore, her credentials behind the scenes run deep. She has served on the Sundance Film Festival programming team, led narrative feature programming at Slamdance for over a decade, spent ten years with the LA Film Festival, and curated Geena Davis's Bentonville Film Festival. As a producer, her features include The Last Time You Had Fun, Lake Los Angeles, and No Light and No Land Anywhere, the latter executive produced by Miranda July. In short, few guests are better equipped to judge a scrappy genre debut from a first time director. James Gunn as a First-Time Filmmaker Before Slither, James Gunn was a writer with a strange resume. He cut his teeth at Troma on Tromeo and Juliet, then wrote the live action Scooby-Doo movies and the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake. Consequently, Slither arrived as his first chance to direct his own material. The panel debates what the film reveals about Gunn as a filmmaker. Specifically, they trace the DNA that later shows up in Guardians of the Galaxy, The Suicide Squad, and Superman. The needle drops, the found family of misfits, and the sincere heart under the gross-out gags all start here. Moreover, Drea brings a programmer's eye to the question of how debut features signal a career to come. Sex and Violence on the Slither 2006 Podcast Slither earns its R rating with enthusiasm. The Taste Buds tackle how the film weaponizes both sex and violence, often in the same scene. Grant's infection plays like a grotesque infidelity story, and the alien's reproductive plans push body horror into genuinely uncomfortable territory. However, the violence stays cartoonish enough to keep the comedy alive. The panel asks where Gunn draws that line, and whether the bathtub scene, the barn scene, and that infamous bursting body still shock today. Ultimately, the conversation lands on a bigger question. Does the film use its excess for a purpose, or is the excess the point? Is Slither an Allegory? Every great monster movie smuggles in a meaning, or so the theory goes. Therefore, the panel puts Slither on the couch. Is the film an allegory for toxic marriage, with Grant's transformation literalizing a controlling husband? Is it about small town conformity, as a hive mind absorbs an entire community? By contrast, maybe Gunn simply loves slugs and explosions, and the search for subtext misses the joke. Drea, Ryan, Mike, and Greg each stake out a position. Nevertheless, the debate keeps circling back to Starla, whose arc gives the film its surprising emotional weight. Trivia No Movie of the Year episode is complete without Trivia. This week's round digs into Slither's production and its B-movie family tree. Expect questions about the practical effects, the casting, and the film's connections to Troma legend Lloyd Kaufman, who cameos in the movie. Additionally, the segment tests whether the panel can untangle Slither from the movies it lovingly rips off, including Night of the Creeps and Shivers. Play along and see if you can outscore the Taste Buds. Dream Blunt Rotation New season, new games. In Dream Blunt Rotation, the panel assembles the ultimate smoke circle from the world of Slither. Which characters make the cut, and which get left outside the garage? Mayor Jack MacReady seems like a chaotic invite, while Bill Pardy might be the chillest hang in Wheelsy. Meanwhile, the conversation drifts toward the cast and crew themselves. Listen to find out who earns a spot in the rotation and whose vibes get vetoed. Awards and Recommendations The episode closes with Awards and Recommendations, the segment where the Taste Buds hand out honors to the film's cast, crew, and creatures. Nominees this week range from Michael Rooker's fearless physical performance to the effects team behind the slugs. As a result, expect passionate cases and at least one baffling pick. The winners stay a surprise, so you will have to listen for the results. Afterward, the panel shares recommendations for what to watch next if Slither leaves you hungry for more horror comedy. Why Slither Still Matters Twenty years later, Slither looks like a turning point hiding in plain sight. It kept practical creature effects alive at a moment when Hollywood was abandoning them. Furthermore, it proved that horror comedy could carry real emotion, a balance Gunn has chased ever since. The film's box office failure also tells a story about 2006 itself, a year when audiences ignored a future superstar director. In practice, the Slither podcast episode asks the question this whole season exists to answer. Does cult status and influence make a movie a contender for the best film of 2006? Listen and judge for yourself. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006 Movie of the Year: 2006 — Intro, Part 1 Movies of 2006: The Bracket Reveal Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story All Movie of the Year episodes FAQ: Slither Podcast and Film What is this episode of the Slither podcast about? Ryan, Mike, and Greg debate whether James Gunn's Slither deserves to advance in the Movie of the Year 2006 bracket. Guest panelist Drea Clark joins to discuss Gunn's debut, the film's sex and violence, and its possible allegories. What is Slither (2006) about? An alien parasite crash-lands near the small town of Wheelsy, South Carolina, and infects a wealthy local named Grant Grant. He mutates into a tentacled monster while slug-like creatures take over the town. A police chief and Grant's wife fight to stop the invasion. Who directed Slither? James Gunn wrote and directed Slither as his feature directorial debut. He later directed the Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy and now co-runs DC Studios. Who stars in Slither? The cast includes Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Michael Rooker, Gregg Henry, and Tania Saulnier, with a small role for Jenna Fischer. Full credits are on IMDb . More Questions from the Slither 2006 Podcast Was Slither a box office success? No. The film grossed under $13 million against a $15 million budget. However, strong reviews and home video sales turned it into a cult classic. Is Slither a remake? No, but it wears its influences proudly. Gunn openly drew on Night of the Creeps, Shivers, The Blob, and the Troma catalog, where he started his career. Who is the guest on this episode? Drea Clark, producer, festival programmer, and co-host of the Maximum Film! podcast on Maximum Fun. Why does Slither still matter? It launched James Gunn's directing career, championed practical effects, and perfected the horror comedy tone that countless films have imitated since. The Slither podcast episode makes the full case.
Movie of the Year: 2006 Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story The Tristram Shandy Podcast Opens the 2006 Bracket The Tristram Shandy podcast episode kicks off our brand new 2006 bracket on Movie of the Year. After crowning our way through 1971, the Taste Buds turn to a fresh film year. Moreover, we start with one of the strangest comedies of the decade. Michael Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story is a film about making a film of an unfilmable book. Consequently, it makes a perfect launch title for a show that loves movies about movies. In this episode, Ryan, Mike, and Greg dig into metafiction, gender, and the prickly chemistry between Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. Additionally, two new segments make their debut. Above all, we want to set the tone for a wild 2006 season. About the Film Laurence Sterne published The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman in nine volumes between 1759 and 1767. The novel is famous for being playful, digressive, and nearly impossible to adapt. Notably, the narrator barely manages to get himself born across hundreds of pages. Winterbottom and his team turned that problem into the whole joke. As a result, the movie follows a fictional crew trying to film the book. Steve Coogan plays a vain version of himself, plus Tristram and his father, Walter. Meanwhile, Rob Brydon plays a needling version of himself and Uncle Toby. The screenplay carries the pseudonym "Martin Hardy," although Frank Cottrell-Boyce actually wrote it. Furthermore, the cast includes Keeley Hawes, Shirley Henderson, Dylan Moran, Naomie Harris, Kelly Macdonald, and Jeremy Northam. Gillian Anderson and Stephen Fry also appear as heightened versions of themselves. You can read more at Wikipedia or the original Roger Ebert review . This is the first film episode of our 2006 season. To explore the wider bracket project, visit the Movie of the Year archive . If you enjoy this Tristram Shandy podcast deep dive, our A Clockwork Orange episode from the 1971 run pairs nicely with this conversation about cinematic form. Want to hear how the season began? Start with our 2006 season intro , then dig into the 2006 bracket reveal before this episode. Metafiction and the Unfilmable Novel Metafiction sits at the center of our first discussion. Sterne wrote a novel that constantly reminds you it is a novel. Similarly, Winterbottom built a movie that keeps reminding you it is a movie. The crew breaks the fourth wall, argues about the script, and screens its own dailies. Therefore, the film becomes a hall of mirrors about storytelling itself. The Taste Buds ask a simple question. How do you adapt a book that mocks the idea of adaptation? Furthermore, we trace the lineage from Sterne to modern self-aware comedies. Films like Adaptation and Day for Night come up as obvious cousins. Ultimately, we argue that Winterbottom found the only honest solution. He filmed the failure instead of the book. Consequently, the movie respects Sterne by refusing to tame him. The Battle of the Sexes on Screen Next, we turn to gender and how the film portrays men and women. The male characters chase status, sex, and screen time with comic desperation. Coogan, in particular, frets about his shoe lifts and his billing. Meanwhile, the women in the film often hold the real power. Kelly Macdonald plays Jenny, who grounds Coogan with calm clarity. Naomie Harris plays Jennie, a production assistant who runs circles around the panicking men. Gillian Anderson arrives late and instantly reshapes the production. By contrast, the men flail and posture. So the Taste Buds debate a thorny point. Does the movie satirize male ego, or does it quietly indulge it? Additionally, we weigh how the battle of the sexes plays inside an 18th-century story. The novel and the film both poke fun at male pride. As a result, the gender comedy spans two very different centuries. Coogan and Brydon Anchor the Tristram Shandy Podcast Above all, the Coogan and Brydon double act drives this Tristram Shandy podcast conversation. The two comedians play exaggerated, petty versions of themselves. Their rivalry over billing, teeth, and impressions fuels the funniest scenes. Notably, this dynamic later powered the beloved series The Trip . The Taste Buds dig into why their friction feels so real. Brydon needles, Coogan bristles, and the comedy snaps into focus. Furthermore, we discuss how improvisation shapes their banter. The closing Al Pacino impression duel becomes a highlight. Meanwhile, we ask whether the pair actually like each other on screen. The answer stays gloriously unclear. Consequently, their chemistry gives a chilly intellectual film a warm, human pulse. Rushmore: The Mount Rushmore of 2006 Television Our Rushmore segment asks each host to carve a Mount Rushmore of 2006 television. The year was loaded with future classics. For instance, The Wire aired its acclaimed fourth season. Meanwhile, The Office , 30 Rock , and Friday Night Lights were all finding their feet. Additionally, prestige newcomers like Dexter and Heroes premiered to big buzz. The hosts each pick four shows and defend their choices. Naturally, the debate gets heated fast. Listen to the episode to hear which four faces each Taste Bud sets in stone. I Never Metacritic I Didn't Like This episode debuts a brand new game called "I Never Metacritic I Didn't Like." The premise is simple and a little dangerous. We pull up a film's Metacritic profile and put the critical consensus on trial. Specifically, we test whether the aggregate score matches our own gut reactions. Tristram Shandy earned strong reviews from critics on release. However, strong scores do not always survive a Taste Buds cross-examination. Therefore, the game lets us argue with the wider critical record in real time. Expect this segment to return throughout the 2006 season. Above all, it gives us a structured excuse to fight about numbers. Why Tristram Shandy Still Matters Tristram Shandy still matters because it cracked a problem that had defeated everyone before it. Winterbottom proved you can film an unfilmable book by filming the attempt. Moreover, the movie launched a now-legendary comic partnership. The Coogan and Brydon collaboration grew into The Trip and its many sequels. Additionally, the film remains a sharp, funny lesson in adaptation. Film students and Sterne scholars both still cite it today. Ultimately, the Tristram Shandy 2006 podcast discussion shows why this small comedy punches far above its weight. Notably, it kicks our 2006 bracket off with brains and mischief. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year: 2006 The 2006 season is just getting started, so this list will grow each week. For now, revisit the episodes that set up the bracket, plus a favorite from our 1971 run. Movie of the Year 2006: Season Intro The 2006 Bracket Reveal Movie of the Year archive The Last Picture Show (1971) FAQ: Tristram Shandy Podcast and Film What is this Tristram Shandy podcast episode about? In this episode, Ryan, Mike, and Greg launch the 2006 bracket by breaking down Michael Winterbottom's comedy. They cover metafiction, gender, the Coogan and Brydon dynamic, and two new segments. What is the movie Tristram Shandy about? The film follows a crew trying to adapt an unfilmable 18th-century novel. As they struggle, the actors' egos and offscreen lives take over the production. Who directed Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story? Michael Winterbottom directed the film. Frank Cottrell-Boyce wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym "Martin Hardy." Is Tristram Shandy based on a book? Yes. Laurence Sterne wrote The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman across nine volumes between 1759 and 1767. You can read more on Wikipedia . Do Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon play themselves? Yes, mostly. Both actors play exaggerated, fictional versions of themselves, and they also play characters in the film within the film. See the full cast on IMDb . Is Tristram Shandy connected to The Trip? Yes, in spirit. This film first paired Coogan and Brydon with Winterbottom, and that chemistry...
Movie of the Year: 2006 The Sweet 16 Revealed The Best Movies of 2006 Enter the Bracket This episode puts the movies of 2006 on the clock, as Ryan, Mike, and Greg reveal which 16 titles advance to the bracket season. The Taste Buds have spent weeks wrestling with a starting field of 64 films, and the cuts have been real. The debates ahead will be worth every minute. Getting from 64 films to 16 requires real conviction. Every cut involves films with legitimate credentials, passionate defenders, and strong arguments in their favor. Consequently, this episode does more than announce a list. It reflects a set of choices the Taste Buds are prepared to defend all season long. About Movie of the Year Movie of the Year is a PopFilter podcast built around one question: what was the best film of a given year? Ryan, Mike, and Greg select a year, assemble a 64-film bracket, and argue their way to a champion. The format rewards deep cinematic knowledge, honest disagreement, and a willingness to change your mind when the argument demands it. The show has built a catalog of bracket seasons that reward both longtime listeners and newcomers. Each season has its own personality, shaped by the films in contention and the friction those films generate in debate. The 2006 season carries that tradition forward with a year that has only gotten more interesting with time. 2006: A Year Worth Arguing About Few years in recent memory offer the range that 2006 does. Prestige dramas, international films, genre pictures, and independent features all had strong years, and the critical consensus at the time did not always hold up. Some films that dominated awards conversation look different now. Meanwhile, others that were overlooked at release have since built lasting reputations. Roger Ebert captured the energy of 2006 well. His review of The Departed reflected a year when ambitious filmmaking found real audiences, and when the line between commercial and prestige cinema blurred in productive ways. Additionally, 2006 produced genuine disagreement between critics and general audiences, which is exactly the kind of tension that makes a bracket season compelling. The Taste Buds considered films across every genre and profile when building the 64-film field. Notably, some titles with strong critical support did not survive the early cuts, while others with devoted fanbases made a stronger case than expected. That tension runs through every round of the bracket. How the Movies of 2006 Bracket Works The bracket is central to what makes Movie of the Year function as a podcast. The Taste Buds begin with 64 films, then work through rounds of debate until one film stands alone. Each episode focuses on a specific matchup or group of films, with Ryan, Mike, and Greg arguing for and against each contender. The Sweet 16 revealed in this episode seeds the season ahead. From there, head-to-head matchups determine which films advance through the Elite Eight, the Final Four, and ultimately the championship. However, seeding does not guarantee anything. A well-argued case can always change the outcome, and upsets are part of the format. For listeners new to the show, this episode therefore serves as an ideal starting point. The Taste Buds make each debate accessible and entertaining, regardless of how familiar you are with any individual film. The Road to the Sweet 16 Cutting 64 films to 16 means making hard calls. The Taste Buds apply consistent criteria across every cut: rewatchability, cultural staying power, craft, and genuine argument value within the bracket. A film that cannot generate a compelling debate does not serve the season well, regardless of its pedigree. Above all, the goal is a Sweet 16 that produces great arguments. A bracket full of obvious consensus picks would make for a dull season. Consequently, the Taste Buds deliberately include films that create friction, titles where reasonable and informed people genuinely disagree about their value and legacy. Some of the 16 films advancing will surprise listeners. Others will feel inevitable. The full reveal happens in this episode, and the reasoning behind each selection is part of what makes debating the movies of 2006 so worthwhile from start to finish. A Starting Field Built for Debate The 64-film field the Taste Buds assembled for 2006 reflects the full range of what the year produced. Genre range mattered in the curation process. So did the desire to include films that cut against consensus and force the bracket to reckon with less comfortable choices. Specifically, the films that survive into the Sweet 16 represent a cross-section of 2006 that rewards close attention and strong opinions. Why the Movies of 2006 Still Matter The Movie of the Year podcast treats film debate as something worth doing seriously. The 2006 season carries that forward with a year whose critical reputation has shifted meaningfully since its release. Films that seemed certain to endure have faded. Others that barely registered in awards conversation have grown into genuine touchstones. The bracket format demands accountability that casual film lists do not. When you argue for a film head-to-head against another specific film, you have to articulate why you believe what you believe. Furthermore, you have to hold that position under pressure from two other opinionated co-hosts who may disagree entirely. Specifically, 2006 sits at a cultural inflection point. Studio filmmaking, independent cinema, and international film all competed for serious critical attention that year, and the market rewarded each in different ways. The season will reflect that range, and the debates will run deep. The movies of 2006 have a lot left to say, and this season is where they say it. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year Movie of the Year — Full Episode Archive The Last Picture Show — Movie of the Year: 1971 A Clockwork Orange — Movie of the Year: 1971 The French Connection — Movie of the Year: 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory — Movie of the Year: 1971 Note: Add 2006 episode URLs to this list as they are published. FAQ: Movies of 2006 and the Bracket Reveal About the Episode and the Show What is this movie's 2006 podcast episode about? Ryan, Mike, and Greg reveal the 16 films advancing to the 2006 bracket season. They narrow a starting field of 64 films down to the Sweet 16, setting up the full season of head-to-head debates ahead. What is Movie of the Year? Movie of the Year is a PopFilter podcast where hosts Ryan, Mike, and Greg debate and rank films from a single year using a bracket format. Each season covers one year of cinema and ends with one film crowned champion. Who hosts Movie of the Year? The show is hosted by Ryan, Mike, and Greg, collectively known as the Taste Buds, on the PopFilter podcast network. Each host brings a distinct critical perspective to every debate. How does the Movie of the Year bracket work? The Taste Buds begin each season with 64 films from the chosen year. Through debate-style episodes, films compete head-to-head until one film is crowned Movie of the Year. The Sweet 16, Elite Eight, Final Four, and championship rounds each produce their own episodes. About the 2006 Season Why is 2006 a significant year in film history? 2006 produced a strong and varied field of films across genres and profiles. Prestige dramas, international cinema, genre filmmaking, and independent features all had notable years, making 2006 an ideal year for bracket debate. How did the Taste Buds select the 64-film starting field? The Taste Buds curated the field based on critical reception, cultural staying power, rewatchability, and argument value within the bracket format. The goal was a field that represents the full range of 2006, including some selections that will surprise listeners. Where can I listen to Movie of the Year? Movie of the Year is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you listen to podcasts. Full episodes and archives are also available at popfilter.co . What films made the 2006 Movie of the Year Sweet 16? The 16 films advancing to the bracket are revealed in this episode. Listen to find out which films survived and how the Taste Buds justify every selection.
Movie of the Year: 2006 A New Season Begins The Movies of 2006 Podcast Begins: 128 Films Enter the Bracket The movies of 2006 podcast is officially underway, and the Taste Buds are ready to take on one of the richest film years of the 21st century. Ryan, Mike, and Greg kick off the 2006 season on PopFilter by introducing the year, explaining the bracket structure, and beginning the first round of eliminations. Furthermore, Part 1 of the intro sets the tone for a season packed with genuine heavyweights, unlikely contenders, and some of the most debated films of the decade. 2006 delivered a field that refuses to cooperate with easy rankings. The Departed sits alongside Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, and Little Miss Sunshine in the same calendar year. Additionally, Casino Royale, The Prestige, Babel, Borat, and Idiocracy all arrived in 2006, representing wildly different visions of what cinema can accomplish. The Taste Buds have their work cut out for them. About the 2006 Film Year 2006 stands as one of the most celebrated film years of the decade. Martin Scorsese's The Departed swept the Academy Awards, winning Best Picture and earning Scorsese his first Oscar for Best Director. Meanwhile, Guillermo del Toro delivered Pan's Labyrinth, a Spanish-language dark fantasy that works equally as a fairy tale and a historical horror. Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men earned near-universal acclaim for its singular, one-take-heavy vision of a dying civilization. The box office reflected 2006's breadth. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest topped the global charts. Casino Royale relaunched the Bond franchise with Daniel Craig in his debut as 007. Cars kept Pixar's winning streak intact. Moreover, the comedies were just as crowded: Borat, Talladega Nights, Idiocracy, and Clerks II each built devoted audiences. Consequently, building a bracket from this year means making choices that will draw genuine disagreement from all directions. International cinema contributed heavily to 2006's depth. Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel earned seven Academy Award nominations after competing at Cannes. Pedro Almodóvar's Volver brought Penélope Cruz one of her most celebrated screen performances. The year also produced major releases from Darren Aronofsky (The Fountain), Sofia Coppola (Marie Antoinette), Christopher Nolan (The Prestige), and Mel Gibson (Apocalypto). In practice, few years in recent memory offer this density of debate-worthy titles across this many genres. The movies of 2006 represent a year when every corner of the industry produced something worth arguing about. How the Movie of the Year Bracket Works Movie of the Year uses a bracket format borrowed from sports tournaments. The Taste Buds seed 128 films from a given year and match them head-to-head across multiple rounds until one earns the title of best of the year. The movies of 2006 provide an especially deep pool to draw from. Each round cuts the field in half: 128 to 64, 64 to 32, 32 to the Sweet 16, and on through the Elite Eight, Final Four, and championship. Notably, the bracket covers the full range of the year — prestige titles, genre pictures, comedies, blockbusters, and deep cuts all compete on equal footing. The seeding and matchups drive the conversation. A high-seeded favorite facing a scrappy underdog often produces the most spirited debates, because the Taste Buds evaluate every film on its own terms. No film earns an automatic pass based on reputation alone. A beloved blockbuster can fall in round one. A smaller film can advance much further than anyone expects. Therefore, the bracket functions as a pressure test for every assumption the hosts carry into the season. The format also distinguishes Movie of the Year from a standard best-of list. The hosts cannot simply rank their favorites and close the debate. Instead, they defend each pick against a direct opponent, round after round. Above all, the bracket produces arguments that a list never could, because every vote carries immediate consequences. To see what this process looks like across a full season, the Movie of the Year archive includes complete coverage of every year the Taste Buds have tackled, including the recently completed 1971 season . The 2006 First Round: Inside the Movies of 2006 Podcast Bracket The first round of the 2006 season pits 64 matchups against one another and cuts the field in half. Part 1 of the intro covers the opening set of battles, with Part 2 completing the round. Even the quickest first-round decisions carry weight, because an early upset can remove a major contender long before the serious rounds begin. 2006 gives the hosts no shortage of compelling first-round scenarios. High-profile releases like Superman Returns, X-Men: The Last Stand, and Blood Diamond arrive as recognizable titles but face real scrutiny on merit. Films like Half Nelson, Brick, and Thank You for Smoking represent the indie side of the year with strong critical backing. Moreover, the international titles — Pan's Labyrinth, Volver, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer — introduce a different set of criteria into the matchups entirely. The documentary field adds another dimension. An Inconvenient Truth became one of 2006's most discussed releases and earned Al Gore an Academy Award. Jesus Camp generated controversy and critical notice in equal measure. Additionally, the horror entries, the prestige dramas like United 93 and The Good Shepherd, and the awards-season crowding all create pressure across the bracket from the opening round. Roger Ebert's four-star review of The Departed captures the critical consensus around 2006's most decorated film. Nevertheless, the first round is only the beginning. Why 2006 Still Matters 2006 represents a pivotal moment in 21st-century cinema. The year demonstrated that prestige filmmaking and mass entertainment could share a single calendar without one displacing the other. The Departed and Pan's Labyrinth both belong to 2006. Borat and Children of Men arrived the same year. That range matters because the best film years do not produce one kind of great film — they produce many kinds simultaneously. Moreover, 2006 produced titles that have only grown in cultural stature since their release. Idiocracy arrived with little fanfare and now functions as a widely cited cultural reference point. Children of Men drew modest theatrical audiences and currently ranks among the most admired films of the decade in retrospective criticism. The Prestige built a devoted following that continues to generate debate about its structure and its final image. Additionally, Casino Royale remains the gold standard for modern Bond films nearly two decades later. The movies of 2006 podcast gives these films a structured arena to compete. That structure reveals something a ranked list cannot: which films hold up under sustained comparison, which reputations survive direct opposition, and which consensus picks turn out to be more fragile than they appear. 2006 deserves this treatment. The Taste Buds are the right crew to find out which film earns the crown. Related Episodes from Movie of the Year Movie of the Year — Full Episode Archive The Last Picture Show — Movie of the Year: 1971 A Clockwork Orange — Movie of the Year: 1971 More 2006 episode pages will be linked here as the season progresses. FAQ: Movies of 2006 Podcast and Film Year What is the movies of 2006 podcast intro episode about? This episode launches the 2006 season of Movie of the Year on PopFilter. Ryan, Mike, and Greg introduce the 2006 film year, explain the bracket format, and work through Part 1 of the first round, taking the field from 128 films down toward 64. How does the Movie of the Year bracket format work? Movie of the Year seeds 128 films from a given year into a tournament-style bracket. Films compete head-to-head across multiple rounds — from 128 to 64, then 32, the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, Final Four, and championship — until one film earns the title of best of the year. The format produces arguments that a simple ranked list cannot, because every vote has immediate consequences. What films are in the 2006 Movie of the Year bracket? The 2006 bracket includes 128 films from across the year: prestige dramas like The Departed, Babel, and Letters from Iwo Jima; international titles like Pan's Labyrinth and Volver; genre films like Children of Men and The Prestige; comedies like Borat, Idiocracy, and Little Miss Sunshine; and blockbusters like Casino Royale and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. What won Best Picture for the 2006 film year? The Departed, directed by Martin Scorsese, won the Academy Award for Best Picture at the 79th Academy Awards in 2007. The film also earned Scorsese his first Best Director Oscar. However, Oscar history and the Movie of the Year bracket determine their...
Movie of the Year: 1971 The Finale, Part II The 1971 Film Finale Podcast: One Champion Remains The 1971 film finale podcast brings the Taste Buds' most ambitious bracket season to its definitive conclusion. Ryan, Mike, and Greg have debated, dismissed, and championed their way through a remarkable field — and now eight films remain. In this episode, four Elite Eight matchups collapse into a single champion, and five major awards close out the season before the final verdict arrives. Furthermore, this finale caps a season that has included some of the most provocative, challenging, and enduring films ever made. From Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange to William Friedkin's The French Connection , the 1971 bracket has consistently rewarded listeners willing to sit with difficult, boundary-pushing work. The season also covered Straw Dogs , Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song , and Dirty Harry — each one generating strong arguments before falling short of the Elite Eight. Additionally, five competitive award categories — Best Sex, Best Violence, Musical Moment, Best Actor, and Best Actress — draw nominees from across the full season. Consequently, this episode stands as the richest and most content-dense installment of the year. Contents The Elite Eight Matchups The 1971 Awards Why the 1971 Film Finale Podcast Still Matters Related Episodes FAQ The Elite Eight Matchups Eight films enter. One leaves as the 1971 champion. The Taste Buds structured the Elite Eight around four head-to-head matchups, and each one forces a different kind of critical argument. A Clockwork Orange vs. The Devils Two of the year's most transgressive films meet in the first matchup. A Clockwork Orange arrived as a season-long frontrunner — a Kubrick film operating at the height of his formal powers, one that the Taste Buds covered in depth on their dedicated episode . Ken Russell's The Devils, meanwhile, delivers a fever dream of religious hysteria and state violence that stands as one of the most divisive films the Taste Buds have discussed all season. Moreover, this matchup poses a pointed question: which film earns its provocation more honestly? Both demand something from the viewer. However, only one advances. Harold and Maude vs. McCabe and Mrs. Miller Harold and Maude represents the season's most warmly beloved film — a dark comedy about love, death, and radical living that generated some of the most enthusiastic podcast discussion of the year. By contrast, Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller offers a revisionist Western suffused with melancholy and moral exhaustion, its beauty inseparable from its grief. Both films carry passionate advocates among the Taste Buds. Consequently, this matchup ranks among the tightest and most personal bracket debates of the entire season. Above all, it asks whether warmth or ache makes the stronger lasting impression. Wanda vs. The Conformist Barbara Loden's Wanda — a micro-budget American independent masterwork — faces Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist, a visually ravishing Italian political drama. Notably, both films center on characters adrift in systems designed to diminish them. Nevertheless, they arrive at very different emotional endpoints: Wanda drifts, the Conformist spirals. The Taste Buds' arguments in this matchup reveal as much about their own critical values as about the films themselves. In practice, this is the bracket's most purely cinephile debate. The French Connection vs. The Last Picture Show The bracket's most commercially dominant film — The French Connection , winner of five Academy Awards including Best Picture — faces Peter Bogdanovich's elegiac The Last Picture Show . In practice, this matchup pits Hollywood's muscular genre filmmaking against its more introspective New Wave ambitions. As a result, the debate cuts to the heart of what 1971 cinema actually achieved. Gene Hackman's Popeye Doyle and the dusty streets of Anarene, Texas, represent two entirely different ideas of what a great film should do — and the Taste Buds have strong opinions on which idea wins. The 1971 Awards Before the bracket champion is named, the Taste Buds present five awards covering the full sweep of the season. This Movie of the Year 1971 podcast segment features each host nominating the moments they found most memorable, daring, or essential — and the resulting field spans an extraordinary range of films and tones. Best Sex The nominees range from the tender to the violent to the surreal, drawing from three different films and three distinct registers of human sexuality. Jacy and Abilene — The Last Picture Show The Pool Party — The Last Picture Show The Rape of Christ — The Devils The Sex Duel with the Biker Gang — Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song Young Sweetback and the Sex Worker — Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song Best Violence The nominees span the full tonal range of 1971 action filmmaking — from Dirty Harry 's iconic bank robbery standoff to the slow, aching finality of McCabe dying alone in the snow. The Car Chase — The French Connection Harry Foils a Bank Robbery — Dirty Harry The Kid Kills the Cowboy — McCabe and Mrs. Miller The Ludovico Technique — A Clockwork Orange McCabe Dies Alone in the Snow — McCabe and Mrs. Miller Musical Moment The nominees here demonstrate just how varied 1971's soundtrack was — Cat Stevens, Beethoven, and Gene Wilder all make the shortlist. Maude Sings "If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out" — Harold and Maude Opening Funeral March — A Clockwork Orange "Pure Imagination" — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory "Singin' in the Rain" — A Clockwork Orange The Tango — The Conformist Best Actor The five nominees represent the full range of 1971 male performance — from Hackman's coiled rage to Wilder's heartbreaking wonder. Additionally, this category generated some of the most contested debates in the entire 1971 film podcast season. Warren Beatty — McCabe and Mrs. Miller Gene Hackman — The French Connection Oliver Reed — The Devils Jean-Louis Trintignant — The Conformist Gene Wilder — <a...
Movie of the Year: 1971 The Finale, Part II The 1971 Film Bracket Podcast Reaches the Elite Eight This 1971 film bracket podcast returns with its most dramatic episode yet. Ryan, Mike, and Greg — the Taste Buds — work through the bottom half of the Sweet 16, producing four matchups that nobody saw coming. Furthermore, the episode hands out two major awards: Comedic Performance and Biggest Shithead. The results set the stage for Part III, where the Elite Eight will be whittled down to a single 1971 champion. If you missed Part I of the finale, start there first. The bracket has been full of upsets throughout the season. Consequently, no outcome here should be taken for granted. The Sweet 16: Bottom Half of the 1971 Film Bracket The bottom half of the 1971 Sweet 16 is stacked. These four matchups pit some of the most beloved and argued-over films in the entire bracket against one another. Moreover, the range of cinema on display — from Hollywood blockbusters to European art films to New Hollywood grit — illustrates exactly why 1971 is one of the most fertile film years ever put to a bracket. The Taste Buds debate each matchup using their standard evaluative framework: craft, cultural impact, rewatchability, and gut feeling. Above all, they trust their instincts — and their instincts have produced surprises at every turn this season. Tune in to find out which four films advance to the Elite Eight. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory vs. Wanda This matchup pits one of cinema's most beloved fantasies against one of its most criminally underseen gems. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory needs little introduction — Gene Wilder's performance alone has kept it in the cultural conversation for over fifty years. Nevertheless, Wanda is no pushover. Barbara Loden's Wanda (1971) is a raw, naturalistic landmark of American independent cinema, and its inclusion in the bracket has been a point of pride for whoever seeded it. This is a clash of tone, scale, and intention. One film is a spectacle engineered for maximum delight. The other strips cinema down to its bones. However, the Taste Buds must pick one — and the pick will tell you something about where their tastes landed by the time the 1971 season reached its final stretch. The French Connection vs. Brian's Song Two films that defined what mainstream American cinema could do with raw emotional and procedural intensity. The French Connection won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1971. It features one of the most celebrated car chases in film history and a career-defining performance from Gene Hackman as the relentless, morally compromised Popeye Doyle. Additionally, William Friedkin's direction remains a masterclass in gritty, kinetic storytelling. Brian's Song, meanwhile, hit American living rooms as a TV movie and destroyed everyone who watched it. The story of Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo remains one of the most emotionally devastating sports films ever made. Notably, the Taste Buds covered both films earlier this season — so this rematch in the 1971 film bracket carries the weight of all those prior arguments. The Last Picture Show vs. Klute Two of New Hollywood's most enduring films square off here, and neither one will go quietly. The Last Picture Show is Peter Bogdanovich's elegiac black-and-white portrait of a dying Texas town — a film the American Film Institute has called one of the greatest ever made. Furthermore, its ensemble cast, including Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepherd, Cloris Leachman, and Ben Johnson, delivers some of the finest performances in the bracket. Klute, however, has Jane Fonda. Her performance as Bree Daniels earned her the first of her two Academy Awards, and it remains one of the most psychologically intricate portrayals of a woman in crisis in American cinema. Alan J. Pakula's direction is coiled and paranoid in all the right ways. Consequently, this matchup may be the most difficult call in the entire bracket. The Conformist vs. The Panic in Needle Park The final Sweet 16 matchup is the most arthouse of the four — and arguably the most fascinating. Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist is a landmark of European cinema. Vittorio Storaro's cinematography is among the most studied in film school history, and the film's meditation on fascism, identity, and moral cowardice has only grown richer with time. You can read more about the film at Roger Ebert's review on RogerEbert.com . The Panic in Needle Park, by contrast, is bracingly American — a gritty, unglamorous portrait of heroin addiction on the streets of New York. It introduced Al Pacino to mainstream audiences. Moreover, Jerry Schatzberg's unflinching direction makes the film feel almost documentary in its honesty. These two films represent opposite ends of world cinema in 1971, and the Taste Buds must choose one. Award: Best Comedic Performance — 1971 Film Bracket Podcast The Taste Buds hand out individual performance awards throughout the season, and the Comedic Performance category drew a fascinating and eclectic field of nominees. The 1971 bracket is not short on laughs — from the anarchic fantasy of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory to the dark comedy of Harold and Maude. Furthermore, the nominees represent a range of comic registers, from broad physical performance to pitch-black wit. The nominees are: David Battley — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Mike's pick) Julie Dawn Cole — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Greg's pick) Bud Cort — Harold and Maude (Mike's pick) Michael Gothard — The Devils (Ryan's pick) Gene Wilder — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Greg's pick) David Battley's turn as the hapless Mr. Turkentine in Willy Wonka is a masterwork of bewildered reaction comedy. Julie Dawn Cole's Veruca Salt is a full-throttle comic creation — spoiled, relentless, and somehow sympathetic. Additionally, Bud Cort's Harold is a genuinely difficult comic achievement: deadpan to the point of catatonia, yet somehow enormously warm. Michael Gothard's Father Barre in The Devils is Ryan's wild-card choice — a performance of manic, committed intensity that functions as dark comedy whether or not Ken Russell intended it. Meanwhile, Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka remains one of cinema's great comic performances — menacing, whimsical, and deeply strange all at once. The winner is waiting for you in the episode. Award: Biggest Shithead of 1971 One of the Taste Buds' most beloved recurring awards, the Biggest Shithead category recognizes the most memorably awful person — or entity — in the bracket. Notably, this award rewards commitment. Nominees do not simply do bad things. They do bad things with style, conviction, and a complete lack of self-awareness. The nominees are: Baron de Laubardemont — The Devils (Greg's pick) The Lady at Snakearama — Duel (Ryan's pick) The Motorcycle Cop — Harold and Maude (Greg's pick) Mr. Deltoid — A Clockwork Orange (Mike's pick) Veruca Salt — Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (Mike's pick) Baron de Laubardemont, the cold bureaucratic villain of The Devils , brings state-sanctioned cruelty to the category. The Lady at Snakearama from Duel is Ryan's inspired choice — a brief but indelible portrait of someone who simply should not be in this movie. Furthermore, Harold and Maude's Motorcycle Cop is a monument to institutional pettiness. Mr. Deltoid from A Clockwork Orange is a sweaty, oleaginous masterpiece of ineffectual authority — Mike's nomination is well-argued. Veruca Salt, however, may be the category's most pure entry: a child who has elevated wanting things to an art form. The winner, as always, is in the episode. Why This 1971 Film Bracket Podcast Still Matters The Sweet 16 is where bracket tournaments reveal their true character. By this stage, the obvious candidates are mostly gone. What remains are the films that survived not on reputation alone but on genuine argument. Moreover, the bottom half of the 1971 Sweet 16 contains some of the season's most debated films — which means every matchup result carries real emotional weight. The year 1971 is one of the most remarkable in cinema history. New Hollywood was hitting its stride. European art cinema was pushing form to its limits. Genre filmmaking was getting stranger, darker, and more personal. Consequently, any bracket drawn from this year produces matchups that feel genuinely impossible to call. The Taste Buds do not pretend otherwise — they argue, they agonize, and they vote. Part III is coming. The Elite Eight will determine the Movie of the Year: 1971 champion. Above all, this episode is the last chance to see which films survive before the final reckoning. Subscribe to PopFilter and follow along — the 1971 film...
Ranking source
Apple Podcasts rankings via the Mato Topic Intelligence Platform.
Observed September 12, 2026. Cached outside the daily freshness window; the positions keep the date they were taken on.
Apple and Apple Podcasts are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.
Pairs with
Bring this source into Mato to read its transferable patterns, then turn them into an original show for your own audience.