Cade and Kit - Movie Reviewers

In this Season 4 drama review, Cade and Kit take on Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale, a film Cade comes into with background from the series and Kit watches fresh. They note right away that the movie lands well with both critics and audiences, with a 91% Tomatometer and a 95% Popcornmeter, and they quickly understand why. Even without having seen the full series, Kit finds it surprisingly easy to follow, thanks to how clearly the film frames its characters, relationships, and shifting family dynamics. Cade adds that longtime fans likely get even more from it, because so much of the emotional payoff comes from seeing these characters age, change, and move into new phases of life.What stands out most to both of them is how beautifully the film handles transition. Rather than relying on one central dramatic event, the story unfolds through several smaller storylines about family, work, marriage, retirement, scandal, and generational change. The big throughline is the passing of responsibility and influence from one era to the next, and both hosts appreciate how the film lets that happen in a way that feels emotional without being heavy-handed. They point out that many of the characters are facing changes they know are necessary, but that still come with grief, uncertainty, and resistance. For Kit, that becomes the real theme of the movie: it is never the perfect time for change, but life keeps moving anyway.They also spend time talking about how strong the writing is, especially in the dialogue. Kit loves the dry British humor, the underplayed insults, the long formal phrasing, and the way characters can say something cutting with almost no change in tone. She jokes that she laughed more at this drama than she did at some of the actual comedies they have watched this season. The script feels poetic and restrained, and that style makes even small pauses or simple lines land harder. Cade agrees that the dialogue and the performances are what keep the movie so engaging, especially since the plot itself is not action-packed. Instead, the film depends on smart writing, excellent acting, and believable relationships.They both also praise the production as a whole. The set dressing, costuming, historical detail, and general atmosphere all work beautifully, and Kit especially notes how impressive it is that the movie feels elegant and cinematic without losing its sense of intimacy. Cade points out that the characters feel real within this world, not like exaggerated period-piece versions of themselves. Even the more scandal-driven moments are played in a grounded way, which keeps the drama feeling human rather than melodramatic. They also appreciate that the film is easy to watch with family. It deals with meaningful adult themes, but it remains accessible, warm, and comfortable in a way that feels increasingly rare.In the end, they land on a 3.5 out of 5. Cade leans slightly higher because of his history with the series and the emotional payoff of seeing certain arcs come full circle, while Kit comes in a little lower simply because she does not have that same long attachment to the characters. Still, they both agree it is a strong, well-made film that succeeds as both a finale for longtime fans and a satisfying standalone watch for people who enjoy period dramas, family stories, and character-driven writing.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Cade and Kit continue Season 4 of their Top 25 Films of 2025 with Weapons, diving back into horror—Kit’s favorite genre. The film holds strong ratings with a 93% Tomatometer and 85% Popcornmeter, and both hosts immediately agree it lives up to the hype. At just over two hours, the runtime feels justified, with neither feeling like the film dragged or included unnecessary filler.The story follows a disturbing premise: seventeen children from a single classroom disappear in the middle of the night, all leaving their homes at the exact same time—except for one boy who remains. The narrative unfolds through multiple perspectives, primarily centered on the teacher, who becomes the main suspect due to her connection to all the missing children. Cade appreciates the layered storytelling approach, where each perspective adds new information, allowing the audience to piece together the mystery gradually rather than being handed answers outright. Kit notes that this structure works especially well in horror, as it keeps viewers actively engaged, constantly searching for clues.The tone of the film is what stands out most. It builds unease without over-explaining, letting the horror sit in ambiguity. The teacher is portrayed as flawed but sincere, making her an unlikely villain and adding emotional weight to her storyline. The real tension escalates with the introduction of Aunt Gladys, a deeply unsettling character whose presence immediately feels off. Her appearance, behavior, and ritualistic actions suggest supernatural influence, but the film avoids clearly defining her powers, which makes her even more disturbing.As the mystery unfolds, it becomes clear that the children were drawn to the house through ritual, orchestrated by Gladys. The surviving boy is revealed to be acting under her control, manipulated through fear—specifically the threat of harm to his parents. Cade and Kit both highlight how effective this is emotionally, as the boy isn’t malicious, just trapped in an impossible situation. The horror sequences lean into physicality, with violent, animalistic attacks that focus heavily on the body—especially the face—which adds to the film’s visceral impact.The climax delivers a chaotic but satisfying moment when the children turn on Gladys, destroying her in a scene that blends horror with a strange sense of release. However, the film doesn’t fully resolve everything. The children remain affected, the parents are left broken, and the world doesn’t return to normal. Kit especially appreciates this choice, noting that it reflects how trauma lingers beyond the event itself.Ultimately, they rate Weapons a 4.5 out of 5. Both agree it’s one of the strongest films of the season, praising its atmosphere, character-driven storytelling, and refusal to over-explain. It’s a standout horror film that stays with you—and one they would both rewatch and recommend.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Cade and Kit step outside their Top 25 list for a Season 4 bonus episode after being invited to a premiere screening of Reminders of Him, a Colleen Hoover adaptation shot in Alberta, Canada. Right away, there’s a sense of pride baked into the experience—familiar locations, local crew members in the audience, and a film that clearly had strong regional support. It also continues the trend of Hoover’s work making its way into Hollywood, which they note as something they’ve been watching closely.The film itself sits in a familiar divide: 56% on the Tomatometer and 89% on the Popcornmeter. That split becomes the central conversation. As Cade points out, this is exactly where their role as “real people doing real reviews” comes into play—balancing appreciation for audience enjoyment with a more critical lens around depth and execution. The story follows a woman returning to her small town after serving time in prison for a tragic accident that killed her fiancé. While incarcerated, she gave birth to their daughter, who has since been raised by his parents. Upon release, she attempts to rebuild her life, reconnect with her child, and navigate the grief and resentment that still surrounds her—while forming a relationship with her late fiancé’s best friend.What stands out most for both of them is the lead performance. They agree she completely carries the film. Her portrayal feels grounded, consistent, and believable in a way that anchors everything else around her. Cade especially connects to this, noting that she rarely finds herself caring about characters in romantic dramas, but here, she did. The way grief is expressed—particularly in scenes where the character chooses to step back for the sake of her child—feels authentic enough to land emotionally. Cade even admits to crying more than once, which is rare for her, specifically calling out a moment where the character chooses to leave despite wanting to stay, prioritizing stability for her daughter over her own desires.They also highlight how well the film captures small-town life. The characters feel like people you’ve met before, from the grocery store manager to the family dynamics at play. There’s a warmth to it that feels recognizable. From a filmmaking perspective, they were impressed with how it was shot—particularly for a Canadian production. Instead of the typical “distant” or overly staged feel they often associate with Canadian cinema, this one feels intimate and natural, allowing the performances to breathe. Cade also has a personal moment during the credits, noticing that the first several key roles—producer and director—are all women. It’s the first time she’s experienced that in a theater setting, and she connects it directly to the tone of the film and how the lead character is supported.Where the film loses points for them is in its lack of complexity. Kit describes it as “easy watching,” not because the subject matter is light, but because it’s very straightforward. The story doesn’t challenge the audience much and leans into a softer, more palatable version of events. Cade, in particular, wanted more edge—more manipulation, more moral gray areas, more unpredictability in how the characters behave. Instead, the film chooses a cleaner, more forgiving path. They also note that while the lead performance is strong, many of the supporting characters feel underdeveloped, functioning more as pieces of the story than fully realized people.In the end, they land slightly above the critics but below the audience hype, giving it a 3.5 out of 5. It’s not a groundbreaking film, but it’s well-acted, emotionally effective, and clearly resonates with viewers.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Back into the second block of the Top 25 of 2025, Cade and Kit deliberately go hunting for something shorter after getting burned by too many long runtimes in the first round. They land on One of Them Days, a buddy comedy starring Keke Palmer and SZA, and it ends up being one of the easiest watches of the season so far. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 94% critics / 89% audience, which they find a little surprising for a buddy comedy, since those usually skew more audience-heavy. Still, after watching it, they get why critics responded: this one really works because the chemistry does.The movie follows two best friends over the course of a single chaotic day. One has just finished a night shift and needs to sleep before an important job interview later that afternoon. The other has trusted her deadbeat boyfriend with the rent money… and of course he’s disappeared. From there, the film becomes a countdown-to-eviction comedy where every possible solution gets more ridiculous: checking the boyfriend’s phone, chasing him to another woman’s apartment, trying a payday loan place, donating blood for cash, finding expensive sneakers on a wire, selling them, losing the money, getting chased by neighborhood chaos, and somehow still trying to hold onto the possibility of a better day by the end of it.What really lands for both of them is the rhythm. The movie is packed with physical comedy, but it always cuts back to the girls’ friendship in a way that makes the jokes hit harder. It’s not just random outrageous stuff happening to people; it’s the way the two leads react to it, process it, and keep moving. Keke Palmer especially gets a lot of love here for how expressive and funny she is physically, but they both agree SZA really holds her own too. The whole thing feels bright, fast, and specific, and they liked that it all takes place over one day without dragging the plot out beyond what it needs.By the end, Cade and Kit both land on a 4 out of 5. They’d recommend it, they’d rewatch it, and they think it nails what a buddy comedy is supposed to do: make you laugh, make you care about the friendship, and keep the pace moving without trying to be deeper than it needs to be. It’s silly, but clever silly — and that’s what makes it work.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Episode four of the Top 25 of 2025 lineup brings Cade and Kit into the sci-fi/fantasy category with the live-action remake of How to Train Your Dragon. Cade sold the category as something Kit would enjoy, but once she realized it was still very much a kids movie with dragons, she felt a little tricked. Still, with strong audience numbers (77% critics / 97% audience on Rotten Tomatoes), it clearly landed well with families.The story follows Hiccup, the inventive but awkward son of a Viking chief who leads a village known for slaying dragons. While his father wants him to become a strong dragon hunter like everyone else, Hiccup is more of an engineer than a warrior. During a dragon attack, he captures a rare and mysterious dragon but chooses not to kill it. Instead, he begins secretly caring for it and eventually names it Toothless. Through observation and experimentation, he discovers that dragons aren’t the monsters everyone believes them to be—they’re simply being forced to steal food for a larger dragon that threatens them.As Hiccup trains with other young Vikings to become dragon slayers, he quietly applies what he’s learned from Toothless to outsmart the dragons without harming them. Eventually, his secret is exposed, and the village launches a full attack on the dragons’ nest. When the plan backfires and unleashes the massive dragon controlling the others, the kids step in—teaming up with the dragons to save the village and prove that coexistence is possible. By the end, the village transforms its relationship with dragons, and Hiccup’s ingenuity changes everything.Kit points out that the film’s biggest strength is how well the CGI dragons interact with the live-action actors. The animation blends seamlessly with the real environment, making the dragons feel like believable creatures rather than obvious digital additions. She also highlights the strong casting choices—especially the kids—who manage physical fight training, action scenes, and believable character performances while acting against creatures that weren’t physically there.Both hosts also appreciate the messages layered into the story. For younger viewers, it’s about being yourself, trusting your instincts, and questioning what everyone else assumes is true. For older viewers, themes of empathy, intelligence, and teamwork stand out. Cade also notes a meaningful moment near the end when Hiccup loses part of his leg in battle and later receives a prosthetic—mirroring Toothless’s injured tail and reinforcing the idea that strength doesn’t come from perfection but from adapting and supporting each other.While they recognize the film’s craft and messaging, they agree it’s clearly aimed at a younger audience—likely around the 8–13 age range. Cade describes it as easy, wholesome viewing that doesn’t require deep analysis, while Kit notes that her older child stayed engaged but her younger one struggled with the longer runtime.In the end, Cade lands at a 2.5/5, saying he enjoyed it but doesn’t feel the need to revisit it. Kit initially leans toward a 2, but ultimately agrees to meet in the middle, bringing their final shared score to 2.5 out of 5—a solid, family-friendly fantasy that works well for kids and pre-teens, even if it didn’t fully win them over as adult viewers.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Season 4 keeps rolling — and this week, Cade and Kit land on a comedy that actually works for them: Freakier Friday (the sequel). They go in expecting “light, silly, family-safe” and end up pleasantly surprised by how consistently funny it is, mostly because the performances commit hard to the body-swap chaos.They pull the Rotten Tomatoes split right away: 73% critics vs 91% audience, which tracks with how they frame it — critics see it as “inoffensive with a cardboard heart,” while audiences are there for the comfort-food nostalgia and the call-backs. They read one audience review praising the original references and family vibe, and a critic line from Ty Burr that basically sums up the movie’s reputation: sweet intentions, not exactly deep.Plot-wise, they lay it out clean: Lindsay Lohan is now a mom/producer, engaged to a man who also has a teenage daughter. The two teens don’t vibe, the wedding planning is tense, and a tarot-reader-triggered body swap hits… but with a twist. Mom swaps with her daughter, and Grandma swaps with the fiancé’s daughter, which gives the sequel its extra comedic engine. The girls (inside adult bodies) try to sabotage the marriage, while the adults (stuck as teens) stumble through school and teen life — until everyone realizes the “hearts need to change” message isn’t about stopping the wedding, it’s about shifting perspective.Their biggest praise is the comedy craft: Jamie Lee Curtis doing teenager energy in her own body is the standout, and they keep circling back to how rare good physical comedy is — especially when it’s clean and still genuinely funny. They cite specific bits that worked (awkward teen flirting, driving, food fight, goofy chaos) and note the movie is almost two hours but doesn’t feel long because it stays brisk and doesn’t drag.Where they ultimately land is the key takeaway: this is a safe, watchable “movie night” pick that doesn’t feel like brain-rot for adults. It’s surface-level, but intentionally so — a “sweet, silly, low-effort” movie in the best way, and that’s the lane it wins in. Final shared rating: 3/5 — middle-of-the-road, but recommended, and something they’d rewatch (especially as a background family movie).🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Episode three of the Top 25 of 2025 lineup brings Cade and Kit to Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning, and the big question is: is this actually the final one? (They’re not convinced.) What is clear is that it’s exactly what you think it is—global catastrophe, three days to save the world, AI gone rogue, and Tom Cruise running at full speed toward the apocalypse.This time the threat is artificial intelligence taking control of nuclear systems, forcing Ethan Hunt and company to locate the original source code—naturally buried at the bottom of the ocean inside a destroyed submarine. The premise is timely, and Kit gives the film credit for making AI feel genuinely dangerous without leaning into campy “evil robot voice” territory. Visually, the threat feels massive. The spectacle works. The cinematography is strong. The submarine sequence in particular stands out as tense and beautifully shot, even if much of the film lives in shadows and whispered exposition.And there’s a lot of whispering.For nearly three hours, it’s hushed strategy sessions, dark corridors, ticking clocks, and last-second saves. Cade points out that the structure becomes repetitive: explain the impossible plan, insist it can’t be done, Ethan says it can, then he proves everyone wrong in the nick of time. Rinse. Repeat. Add another location. Add another obstacle. Add another returning character from a previous installment for nostalgia. It all connects neatly, and the callbacks are appreciated—but it also feels padded. As they put it, it’s a journey. A very long journey.The AI angle does introduce a clever twist: since the system has predicted every likely move based on data, the team must act against their own instincts. That idea is smart and current. But instead of tightening the storytelling, the film stacks side villains and extra hurdles on top of the main conflict. For Cade, it starts to feel like an action-adventure trilogy compressed into one movie. For Kit, it becomes predictable—of course he’s going to save the world. Of course it’s at the last second. That’s the franchise promise.They also debate who this movie is really for. Action fans likely appreciate the tactical government intrigue, globe-trotting locations, and Cruise’s physical commitment to stunts (yes, the deep-sea sequence is impressive). But as critics sitting between audience and Rotten Tomatoes consensus (80% critics / 88% audience), they find themselves lukewarm. It’s not terrible. It delivers what it promises. It just doesn’t surprise.In the end, they land together on a 2 out of 5. Not because it fails technically—the spectacle is strong and the production value is undeniable—but because neither of them would rewatch it or actively recommend it. If you love Mission: Impossible, you’ll get exactly what you came for. If you’re hoping for something fresher or structurally daring, this one plays it safe.For a franchise about impossible missions, they were just hoping for one unexpected move.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Season four, episode two keeps the promise of what this “Best of 2025” format is supposed to be: a quick reality check between critics, audience buzz, and what it actually feels like to sit down and watch the thing. Cade and Kit come in already knowing Sinners is getting serious love—97% on the Tomatometer and 96% on the popcorn meter—and the early review scroll backs that up. It’s basically unanimous praise, with the only real outlier being one guy who found it “boring,” bailed early, and then tried to convince himself it must be his fault.Their recap lands clean: two twin brothers return to 1930s Mississippi with plans to open a juke spot, pulling together friends, exes, and community to make the opening night happen. The cousin—gifted on guitar—becomes the hinge point, because the film’s core idea is that truly powerful music can “lift the veil” between time, the living, and the dead. That’s the magic… and also the danger, because it draws something hungry in. Once the night kicks off, the movie shifts hard into vampire territory, with the threat building outside the door until the invitation threshold gets crossed and it turns into a full siege: bodies pile up, the crowd becomes a horde, and survival turns into improvisation—garlic, silver, stakes, whatever works.Where they start to wobble is the lore congestion. Kit clocks that the film is doing a lot at once—music mythology, vampire rules, segregation-era Mississippi, KKK terror, witchcraft/voodoo nods, Irish oppression parallels, Native American warnings—and while the movie is clearly smart and intentional, they felt like they had to do homework afterward to connect some dots. The ending is the biggest “wait… what?” moment: the present-day tag implies characters survived (or made deals) in ways the movie doesn’t fully explain, which leaves them asking how the vampire rules actually work if sunlight dusting is real, but staking “individually” still matters, and the “creator” logic doesn’t fully track.Still: they recommend it. They land at a 4/5 because it’s genuinely worth seeing—beautifully shot, exceptionally lit for dark environments and darker skin tones, strong performances, and the music is the glue (and the reason they’d rewatch and replay the soundtrack). Their knock isn’t that it fails—it’s that it’s crowded. A little trimming before the party, a little more clarity on the supernatural rules, and a sharper final beat would’ve pushed it into “locked” territory. As-is, it’s a film that assumes a smart audience—and mostly earns that confidence—even if it leaves you googling a few things on the walk out.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Season four kicks off with Cade and Kit officially shifting into their “Best of 2025” format: five categories, ranked by box office, Rotten Tomatoes, and audience scores, now using the five-star scale to see where their taste lands against the wider review world. They open with a “let’s start strong” pick — One Battle After Another — partly because it’s already getting major awards attention, but they’re immediately skeptical of the critic/audience split and the type of criticism that focuses on craft references over whether a movie actually works.They summarize the film as a long, messy chain of events: an anti-resistance/elite-club conspiracy setup, a missing mom, a burned-out dad hiding out, and a 16-year-old daughter who eventually gets pulled into the endgame. They clock a few bright spots — a couple clever visual jokes (the “taco” shirt), Del Toro’s sensei character feeling grounded, and DiCaprio convincingly playing “sloppy disaster” — but most of their reaction is frustration: the tone is confused, the stakes don’t build, the movie drags (2h 41m), and they keep noticing how often they’re feeling the runtime.Their biggest complaints are that it doesn’t satisfy any audience lane: not enough action for action viewers, not layered enough for arthouse/story people, not funny enough for comedy lovers, and even as critics they feel it’s “pretty but empty.” They call out a repetitive single-note piano cue that becomes distracting, the script feeling trope-stacked, and a finale that wraps with a cliché “letter” setup that feels like it’s begging for a sequel rather than earning an ending. By the end, they land on the simplest verdict possible: one star — not because it has zero craft, but because they wouldn’t recommend it to anyone and they can’t figure out who the movie is actually for.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

In this final installment of our Heated Rivalry mini-series, Cade and Kit wrap up season one by reviewing episodes five and six—and unfortunately, the momentum never quite arrives. After hoping the series would finally deliver on its emotional promise, both hosts felt these episodes doubled down on the same unresolved tension, long conversations, and stalled character development that had already worn thin.While episode five briefly revisits the emotional high point from episode three—highlighting the older player publicly coming out after winning the cup—the show quickly shifts back to the central pair, whose relationship still feels clunky and underdeveloped. Key emotional moments are talked through rather than lived in, leaving the audience to assume depth that never fully shows up on screen. Even scenes meant to feel intimate or vulnerable come across as stiff or oddly staged, making it difficult to connect with what should be high-stakes revelations.Episode six moves the characters to a secluded cottage, a setting that feels primed for emotional payoff, but the opportunity is largely missed. Conversations about honesty and fear replace meaningful action, and pivotal moments—family discovery, parental confrontation, and emotional fallout—are resolved too neatly and too quickly. What could have landed as a powerful cliffhanger instead wraps up cleanly, undercutting the tension the series spent so long building.By the end, Cade and Kit found themselves questioning the hype entirely. While they appreciated the show’s attention to consent, vulnerability, and care in intimate scenes—particularly as representation for younger queer audiences—the overall storytelling felt disjointed and emotionally flat. Episode three remains the clear standout, but as a full series, Heated Rivalry ultimately left them disappointed, closing out season one with more frustration than fulfillment.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

In part two of their Heated Rivalry mini-series, Cade and Kit dive into episodes three and four—and immediately feel a shift. Episode three stands out as the strongest installment so far, introducing a side character whose storyline feels emotionally grounded, clearly motivated, and far more cohesive than the main arc. The episode centers on a closeted hockey player and his growing relationship with Kip, a barista and art student, unfolding over a short, believable span of time. The pacing is tighter, the conversations are direct, and the emotional stakes are clearly communicated, especially around identity, fear, and the cost of staying hidden.What resonates most is the honesty. The characters say what they mean, set boundaries, and react in ways that feel earned. Themes of consent, vulnerability, and quiet heartbreak are handled with maturity, and the episode earns its emotional payoff without overcomplicating the story. By the end, Cade and Kit both agree this episode could stand alone as a feature film—and they’re far more invested in these side characters than the supposed leads.Episode four, however, swings the momentum back in the opposite direction. Returning to the main couple, the storytelling becomes muddled again, with large time jumps, unclear motivations, and emotionally flat scenes. Key moments—conflict, jealousy, intimacy—are introduced without enough buildup or consequence, leaving both hosts frustrated and disengaged. While the show hints at deeper issues like family pressure and internal conflict, it rarely commits to exploring them in a way that feels impactful.Overall, episodes three and four average out to a modest rating, lifted almost entirely by the strength of episode three. Cade and Kit remain cautiously hopeful heading into the final episodes, but agree the series works best when it slows down, commits to emotional clarity, and lets its characters actually talk to each other.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Cade & Kit are back for a quick, rapid “bandwagon review” before Season 4 kicks off, and they’re diving into the buzz around Heated Rivalry with a short three-episode mini-series. This first drop covers Episodes 1 and 2, watched on Crave, with both of them coming in mostly blind—no book, no reviews, no spoilers—just vibes and first impressions.Episode one moves fast, covering a big stretch of time as two rising hockey stars (a Canadian rookie and a Russian rival) build a competitive dynamic that slowly shifts into something… else. The standout moment early on is a tight little gym sequence where the show leans into visual flirt tension in a way that feels more “feature film gaze” than typical sports drama—small details, close looks, steamy silence, and the sense that something is starting before anyone says it out loud. Both of them agree the pacing is quick and dense, to the point where you can’t half-watch it without losing the timeline jumps.They also clock how much the show is already layering stakes outside the romance. The Canadian player is dealing with branding pressure as a minority face in a hyper-visible sport, while the Russian player’s world feels heavier—family expectations, money stress, and a father whose health is visibly declining. That context starts to matter more as the connection develops into a long-distance, secretive situationship, full of sporadic meetups and small bursts of texting across months, cities, and seasons.By episode two, the relationship gets more emotionally complicated—more push/pull, more imbalance, and more “tender moment → shutdown” energy. Kit especially feels the whiplash of intimacy followed by cold distance, while Cade frames it as a realistic result of secrecy, career pressure, and two people who don’t fully know what they’re doing with the feelings yet. They both agree the show is trying to build something slow-burn and layered, but they’re not totally sold yet—even with the strong character groundwork and some surprisingly thoughtful handling of consent and first-time vulnerability.Final verdict for Episodes 1–2 lands around a 3 out of 5 for both of them—“hopeful,” not hooked, but willing to watch at least one more. They’re intrigued by the growing ensemble cast and the broader story setup, but the rapid time jumps and early pacing make it harder to fully lock in. They’ll be back after the next two episodes to see if it finally clicks.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

In this special bridge episode between Season 3 and our upcoming Season 4, we are diving deep into Guillermo del Toro’s highly anticipated Frankenstein. While the classic creature feature is a genre that usually divides us—with Kit loving the monsters and Cade being a tougher buy-in—del Toro’s $120 million reimagining on Netflix left us both floored. We break down the film's unique three-part structure, moving from the madness of the doctor’s childhood to the heartbreaking perspective of the creature himself. From the stunning cinematography and Rembrandt-inspired lighting to the complex themes of loneliness, father-son redemption, and the search for a soul, this adaptation is a far cry from the "cheesy" monster movies of the past.Stick around until the end of the episode for some major channel updates! We are officially prepping for Season 4: The Best of 2025, and with it comes a massive shift in how we review films. To gear up for our official Rotten Tomatoes critic application, we are moving to a standardized five-star rating system. Whether you’re here for the deep-dive film analysis or the "Real People" banter, this episode is the perfect primer for the new era of the show.Key Highlights:The Del Toro Touch: Why this $120M budget actually shows up on screen.Creature Perspective: How humanizing the monster changes the entire story.Theme Analysis: The intersection of science, faith, and the human need for connection.Road to Season 4: Our new ranking system and the path to becoming Rotten Tomatoes certified.🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

They wrap Season 3 by looking back at Cade’s picks and how those films shaped the overall Stories That Stick experiment. Cade’s list clocked in at just under 20 hours of runtime, noticeably shorter than Kit’s, which already hinted at the difference in how they choose movies. Cade gravitates toward clearer narratives and emotional resolution, while Kit tends to favor films that linger, challenge, or leave meaning open-ended.Rewatching these films sparked a lot of reflection, especially around how stories age and how personal context changes reception. Some movies, like The Pursuit of Happyness, landed even harder this time around, feeling more relevant now than on first watch. Others, like Forrest Gump, still held up as emotionally sincere, even as they sparked conversations about how modern audiences might receive that kind of sweeping, improbable storytelling today.The biggest surprises came from where they aligned and where they didn’t. To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar emerged as a standout for both of them—joyful, absurd, and unexpectedly layered—while Patch Adams remained the most divisive, highlighting how tone, casting, and intent can completely shift a viewer’s experience. In the end, Cade edged out the season battle 4–2, with several ties, proving that consistency and emotional clarity can beat big swings.They close the season by teasing what’s next: Season 4 will shift into ranking the best films of the year using box office performance, critic scores, and audience reactions, all while moving to a five-star rating system. Different structure, same debates.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

As Season 3 of Stories That Stick nears its end, Cade and Kit take time to reflect on Kit’s movie picks and how those films shaped the season, their ongoing debates, and their evolving perspectives as movie critics. This episode looks back on the movies that mattered most to Kit, how they landed with Cade, and what the process revealed about taste, storytelling, and why certain films stay with us long after the credits roll.The recap opens with a lighter moment as Kit explains the custom couture piece worn throughout the season, designed by Ayo of Faya Athleticwear specifically for the Stories That Stick shoot. Along with multiple photo sessions featuring tape, post-its, gum, and other “sticky” elements, the visuals became a clear extension of the season’s theme—stories that cling to memory and shape perspective.From there, the conversation moves into the numbers behind Kit’s picks. Across the season, her films totaled 1,404 minutes, or just over 23 hours of runtime. Cade walks through how the rankings shook out from both sides, highlighting where their opinions aligned and where they diverged sharply. Kit’s top films included Life of Pi, Moulin Rouge, Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2, Colombiana, and Boyhood, while Cade’s personal rankings reordered the list significantly, putting Erin Brockovich at the top.The episode reinforces a recurring theme from the season: while Cade and Kit often align on genre films, their tastes split when it comes to stylized, introspective, or experimental cinema. Kit reflects on her love of arthouse films, musicals, and stories rooted in isolation, visual immersion, and open-ended interpretation. Cade, on the other hand, gravitates toward grounded narratives, true stories, and films that offer clearer emotional resolution.They revisit standout rewatches like Boyhood and Into the Wild, with Cade expressing renewed respect for Boyhood’s long-term commitment to storytelling, and Kit sharing how rewatching it reaffirmed her appreciation for cinema as an art form built on patience and risk. These moments highlight how revisiting impactful films later in life can shift perspective.As the recap winds down, Cade and Kit reflect on what Stories That Stick revealed about them as critics and collaborators. Rather than framing their differences as conflict, they recognize them as the foundation of the show’s dynamic—proof that meaningful film conversations don’t require agreement, just honesty and curiosity.The episode closes by teasing the next recap—Cade’s picks—and the final outcome of their season-long battle, reinforcing the idea that the films that matter most aren’t always the ones everyone loves, but the ones that continue to spark conversation long after the screen goes dark.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Kit and Cade close out their “favorite movie” picks before the Season 3 recap, with Cade bringing his all-time comfort pick: Patch Adams, starring Robin Williams. Cade frames it as the ultimate “chicken noodle soup for the soul” movie—funny, emotional, a little scary in places, and anchored by a big-hearted message about caring for people. Kit goes in excited (Robin Williams + feel-good premise), but ends up having a very different reaction to how the film executes its themes.The film starts with Patch checking himself into a mental hospital, which both of them agree is a strong opening—especially for a movie that touches men’s mental health. While inside, Patch connects with other patients in unconventional ways: he plays into a roommate’s fear of “imaginary squirrels” to help him function, and he has a key exchange with a brilliant professor who repeatedly asks, “How many fingers do you see?” Patch learns the point isn’t to stare at the obvious problem, but to look beyond it—setting up the movie’s central philosophy: treat the patient, not the disease.After leaving the hospital, Patch enters medical school and immediately clashes with the rigid, prestige-driven culture. Cade loves how Patch challenges “this is how it’s always been done” thinking, pushing curiosity, humanity, and bedside manner as essential parts of medicine—not optional extras. Kit agrees with the idea of fixing cold medical culture, but starts to disconnect from the way Patch’s behavior is portrayed, especially in the early medical school sections and his pursuit of the main love interest.Their biggest split comes from Patch’s approach to the love story and his “unorthodox” hospital interactions. Cade reads Patch’s persistence as sweet, romantic, and sincere—balloons, studying together, slowly winning her over. Kit reads it as a problem: the love interest clearly establishes boundaries early, and Patch continues anyway, which makes her recoil from the romance rather than root for it. That discomfort carries into the hospital scenes too—Patch clowning with sick children and pushing humor as “medicine” works as a feel-good concept for Cade, but for Kit it feels unaccounted for, forced, and not grounded in real-world safeguards. The same goes for Patch trying to connect with a terminal, angry patient by rubbing his feet and singing—Cade sees it as a swing-and-miss moment on the way to deeper connection, while Kit finds it invasive and unrealistic.Midway through, Patch creates the Gesundheit Institute, a free clinic-style community space where patients and caregivers support each other, and the film leans hard into the “medicine can be human” thesis. Cade loves this section, and Kit notes that if the movie had leaned more into holistic care and wellness (instead of sillier beats), the message would’ve landed better for her. They also mention that the real Patch Adams later criticized the film for being too silly and wished it had focused more on holistic medicine—something Kit immediately agrees would have improved it.The finale centers on consequences: Patch is dragged into court for treating patients without a license, and he gives a big closing statement about calling, curiosity, and refusing to let institutions burn out your light. In the courtroom, patients he impacted arrive wearing red clown noses, and the moment becomes a public proof point that his approach mattered—even if it wasn’t traditional. Cade sees it as a huge emotional payoff and one of the reasons the movie stays with people.They close by teeing up the Season 3 recap episode(s), where they’ll run through their favorites across the full “Stories That Stick” journey.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

In this episode of Season Three: Stories That Stick, Cade and Kit move into the final stretch before their full-season recap by sharing one of Kit’s most personal picks: Life of Pi, her all-time favorite film. With the season focused on the movies that shaped how they see cinema, this episode becomes less about agreement and more about perspective—why certain stories stay with us, and why others don’t.Kit explains that Life of Pi earns its place as her favorite not just because of its story, but because of its cinematic ambition. She’s drawn to the film’s visual scale, its three-year post-production process, and its immersive use of CGI and color. More than that, she connects deeply to the film’s themes of isolation, spirituality, survival, and meaning. For her, it’s a movie that doesn’t just tell a story—it asks the viewer to sit with uncomfortable questions about belief, truth, and what we choose to hold onto when everything else is stripped away.The episode walks through the film’s framing device—a writer visiting an older Pi in Canada—before revisiting Pi’s childhood in India, his upbringing in a zoo, and his early exposure to multiple faiths. Kit and Cade discuss how Pi’s spiritual curiosity, encouraged by his mother and challenged by his father, becomes foundational to the way he later survives unimaginable loss. The move to Canada, the ill-fated ship voyage, and the storm that takes Pi’s family set the stage for the film’s central survival story.Much of the conversation centers on Pi’s time at sea with the animals—most notably the tiger, Richard Parker—and how the film balances fear, grief, endurance, and resourcefulness. Cade acknowledges the technical skill and emotional weight of these sequences, especially the sense of isolation and the bond that forms between Pi and the tiger. The discussion also highlights the film’s ambiguity, particularly its final act, where Pi offers two versions of his story and leaves the audience to decide which one they believe—and why.That openness becomes one of the film’s most divisive elements between them. Kit loves that the story invites interpretation, tying directly back to the film’s spiritual themes and the idea that belief can be both protective and meaningful. Cade, on the other hand, struggles with the film’s length and its meditative pace, finding it more artistic than engaging for his personal taste.When it comes to ratings, their differences are clear. Kit gives Life of Pi a 9.5 out of 10, calling it nearly perfect for its emotional impact, visual achievement, and the way it stayed with her long after leaving the theater. Cade rates it a 5 out of 10, acknowledging its beauty and strong performances but admitting it isn’t a film he’d revisit. The contrast underscores one of the core ideas of the season: a movie doesn’t have to land the same way for everyone to matter deeply to someone.The episode closes with a reflection on how taste, personality, and life experience shape the stories that stick with us. Even when they disagree, Cade and Kit emphasize that these differences are what make the conversations—and the season—worth having.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Season 3 – Stories That Stick rolls on with our True Stories theme, and this time it’s Cade’s pick: I, Tonya — the wild, stylized retelling of the Tonya Harding / Nancy Kerrigan saga that took over the ‘90s. Cade talks about remembering the real media frenzy as a kid, watching figure skating with his family, and how surreal it is to see that chaos re-framed through this movie’s “based on a true lie” lens.In this episode, Cade & Kit dig into why I, Tonya works so well as a film even if it clearly takes liberties with the facts. They talk about the mockumentary style, the fake “talking head” interviews, and all the ways the movie blurs the line between documentary and drama to show how media can fully control a narrative — especially in a pre-social media era where Tonya had no platform to defend herself.They also unpack the harder parts: the classism in figure skating, the way Tanya never “fit” the elegant ice princess mold, and how that shaped judging, scoring, and public perception. Kit and Cade spend time on the abuse storyline too — from Tonya’s mother to her marriage — and how the film uses dark humour to make something heavy watchable without letting it off the hook. They also touch on the ethics of portraying real trauma this way, and what might have actually been true behind the tabloid headlines.Finally, they talk about the lasting impact: Tonya being banned from skating, pivoting into boxing, and becoming one of the most “useful” villains in pop culture history. Both Cade and Kit rate I, Tonya a 7/10 – a sharp, stylish, rewatchable take on a story they both grew up hearing.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Stories That Stick continues with the start of our True Stories theme, and this week Kit brings Moneyball — the real-life story of Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s as they attempt to rebuild a failing team using analytics instead of tradition. Kit chose this film because it perfectly reflects his own love for logic, metrics, and decision-making rooted in data rather than emotion. The movie follows Billy, a former player who regrets choosing baseball over a full-ride education, as he fights to build a competitive roster with almost no budget after losing his three star athletes.The heart of the discussion centers around Billy’s unexpected partnership with Peter Brand, a young economics grad whose statistical model focuses on one thing: how often players get on base. Scouts rely on instincts, vibes, attractiveness, and outdated criteria, while Peter brings a system that exposes how wrong those instincts can be. Cade and Kit talk through how the film captures the conflict between old-school baseball thinking and innovation, and how Billy faces enormous resistance from scouts, management, and especially the coach, who refuses to play the players chosen through analytics.The team struggles at first because the coach actively sabotages Billy’s vision, sticking to his own favourites and ignoring the data. Billy ultimately forces alignment by trading away the players the coach insists on using, leaving him no choice but to play the analytics lineup. This shift leads to the incredible 20-game winning streak that becomes the centerpiece of the film — a streak that proves the model works even if the league hates admitting it. Cade and Kit unpack how leadership, pressure, and conviction all show up in Billy’s choices, and why going against the grain demands both grit and risk tolerance.A major part of the conversation explores the Red Sox offering Billy a record-breaking $12.5M contract to bring the Moneyball model to Boston. Kit argues she would’ve taken the job for the resources and scalability, while Cade highlights the emotional reasons Billy declined: his daughter, his regret about chasing money earlier in life, and his desire to win with the A’s on his own terms. The irony, of course, is that Boston wins the World Series the next year using his model.Cade and Kit also touch on the acting, noting that the story itself is stronger than the performances. Cade didn’t find Brad Pitt’s portrayal particularly memorable, while Kit loved Jonah Hill’s quieter role and the film’s overall pacing. Together, they agree it’s a great story with lighter execution — more of a “smart movie” than an emotional one.Kit rates Moneyball a 7.5 for its innovation and message, while Cade gives it a 6.5 for being a strong story but not something he’d rewatch for the performances. It’s an episode about data, leadership, and challenging the norms — and a great start to the true-story arc in Season Three.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

Cade chose The Time Traveler’s Wife, a time-travel film built not on machines, portals, or sci-fi tech, but on a genetic disorder that causes Henry to involuntarily jump through time. The movie ties the mechanics of time travel directly to the emotional core of a love story—one where unpredictability, danger, and absence shape every part of the relationship. Kit and Cade talk through how the film weaves together Henry’s traumatic childhood, the loss of his mother, and how he grows up learning survival skills because every jump leaves him stranded, naked, and in danger. They highlight how the story makes time travel feel intimate, not cosmic.The emotional weight of the movie comes from Clare’s timeline: she’s known older versions of Henry since childhood, growing up with brief flashes of the man she’ll eventually marry. When she meets the younger version of him in the present, he has no idea who she is—a reversal that becomes one of the film’s main tensions. They walk through the details that keep the timeline grounded: Clare’s artwork evolving in the background of their home, the paper-making books from her first scene, the repetition of the clothes she leaves for him in the meadow. The jumps become a way of showing the uneven toll the relationship takes—failed pregnancies, the realization their daughter is time-traveling in the womb, and Henry disappearing for weeks at a time.Near the end, Henry discovers the timeline of his own death and begins preparing everyone around him without ever truly revealing the truth. Cade and Kit pause here to talk about the film’s biggest emotional theme: would you want to know the date of your own death? Cade says absolutely not—it would pressure every moment. Kit says yes—she’d use that knowledge to be more present and intentional. The movie closes on Henry’s death and the later moment where a younger version of him appears to Clare and Alba one last time, tying the story together with a soft emotional release rather than a sci-fi twist.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

In this episode, Cade and Kit continue Season 3 with a brand-new theme: Time Travel. Kit brings The Adjustment Bureau, a sci-fi romance starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt that blends secret organizations, alternate paths, and the tension between fate and free will. The two break down why this movie stands out in the time-travel genre, how it uses space instead of timeline jumps, and why the love story works in a way most sci-fi films don’t attempt.The episode begins with Cade and Kit explaining why they chose to explore themes in Season 3 — specifically how their personal lens shapes the way they review films. When Kit introduces The Adjustment Bureau, she explains that it’s her first instinct when thinking about time-travel movies, not because of traditional past/future jumps, but because the film explores three different layers of “time”: the real world, the Bureau’s invisible grid, and the alternate paths a person could take depending on their choices.They discuss Matt Damon’s character, David Norris, and how his life is carefully managed — first by political consultants, then by the Bureau itself, who manipulate events to ensure he stays on a predetermined path. After losing an election, David meets Elise in a bathroom in a chaotic, unfiltered moment that changes the direction of his life. The second accidental meeting triggers the Bureau’s intervention, forcing David into a confrontation with the group responsible for adjusting reality.Cade and Kit break down the world-building, including the hats that allow agents to travel through a hidden network of doors across New York, and the rules that keep David and Elise apart. They discuss the idea that both characters have “intended” destinies: he is meant to become President, she is meant to become a world-renowned choreographer — and how the Bureau believes their relationship would prevent both outcomes.The hosts explore the tension between fate and autonomy, and why the love story succeeds: Elise sees David as he truly is, not the polished political version of himself, and he doesn’t try to refine or reshape her. Cade notes that many of their scenes were improvised, which contributes to the authenticity of their chemistry. Kit appreciates that the sci-fi elements are grounded: no machines, no creature designs, just the manipulation of time and space through doorways.They also critique the film. Kit would have preferred a darker, more ominous tone for the Bureau and a deeper depiction of David’s confusion, fear, and uncertainty after discovering their existence. She notes that certain emotional beats — such as his three-year search for Elise on the bus — could have used more on-screen weight.Cade adds that he’d like to see a companion film told from the perspective of the sympathetic Bureau agent who helps David, since the character clearly carries his own emotional history and doubts about the system.A grounded, stylish sci-fi romance that plays with “time travel” in a different way: not through decades, but through doorways, detours, and the small adjustments that can alter a life. A strong pick for a theme centered on how cinema reshapes our understanding of time.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/[email protected]

In this week’s episode, Cade brings one of the most iconic rags-to-riches films of the 2000s: The Pursuit of Happyness—spelled with a “y,” much to the main character’s ongoing frustration. Based on the true story of Chris Gardner, the film follows a single father trying to break into the world of stockbroking through an unpaid internship while everything in his life is falling apart. Cade shares why this movie stayed with him all these years: the grit, the stubborn optimism, and the ability to stay calm under pressure even when the pressure is overwhelming.Kit dives into why this film remains one of Will Smith’s strongest performances. So many of the scenes rely entirely on his facial expressions and his internal world—there are long stretches where it's just him, the camera, and whatever moment of survival he’s trying to navigate. They talk about how the film captures the real cost of chasing a dream: the eviction, the motel, the shelter line, the subway bathroom, and the constant fear of not being enough for your child. It’s a very different version of the American Dream narrative—one where the “dream” is simply getting through the week and keeping your dignity intact.Cade breaks down the scene that stood out most to him: Chris telling his son not to let anyone—including him—limit what he believes he can do. Kit highlights the brilliance in the way the film ties Chris’ childhood, intelligence, and work ethic into the story without ever turning it into a cliché. They also get into the uncomfortable reality of working unpaid, being underestimated, and trying to perform professionalism while experiencing homelessness. And, of course, they discuss how Chris’ relentless problem-solving—cutting minutes anywhere he can, taking big swings, showing up even when everything goes wrong—became the foundation for his future success.By the time they reach the iconic final scene—the silent tears, the self-clap in the crowded street—it’s easy to see why both hosts consider this one of the most emotionally honest rags-to-riches stories ever made. It’s not glossy. It’s not convenient. But it’s deeply human.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Julia Roberts steps into the high heels—and higher stakes—of Erin Brockovich, a single mom with no legal training and every reason to quit, who refuses to. After losing a car-accident case, Erin bullies her way into a filing job at a small law office and stumbles across medical records buried in a real-estate file. That curiosity leads to a quiet California town whose water supply has been poisoned by a major utility company. What follows is a fight that turns everyday outrage into one of the most influential class-action suits in U.S. history.Part biopic, part legal thriller, the film moves with the confidence of its heroine. Steven Soderbergh keeps the pacing tight and the tone bright—balancing humor, anger, and determination. The camera lingers not on courtroom speeches but on the grind: Erin knocking on doors, taking handwritten notes, connecting dots that nobody else bothered to. Cade was surprised he’d somehow missed it until now; Kit picked it precisely because it’s that rare “based on a true story” film that feels lived-in rather than dramatized.What makes Erin Brockovich work is how grounded its transformation feels. It’s a true “rags to riches” arc, but the riches come from relentless empathy and long hours, not a lottery ticket. The film never treats Erin’s sexuality as a flaw to be corrected. Her miniskirts and leopard-print tops become part of her armor—an outward declaration that she’ll navigate the system on her own terms. Even when she’s surrounded by suits, she refuses to shrink herself to fit their rooms.Another reason the story resonates is how the investigation unfolds through trust rather than procedure. Erin wins people over because she listens. She remembers their children’s names, their illnesses, their stories. When the corporate lawyers send in polished paralegals with clipboards, the townspeople freeze; when Erin shows up in her convertible with a messy notepad and a genuine tone, they open their doors. Her version of professionalism is humanity, and that becomes the weapon that topples a billion-dollar lie.he film also nails the satisfaction of discovery. The infamous “smoking-gun” document—the memo proving the company knew it was contaminating the groundwater—doesn’t come from forensic brilliance. It comes from persistence and kindness. Erin’s reputation in the community earns her the trust of a plant worker who secretly saved the memo after being told to shred it. That moment captures the heart of the film: big change often starts with one person deciding not to look away.Finally, the story’s moral arithmetic feels right. The money that pours in at the end doesn’t erase the harm, but it creates possibility—for medical care, for rebuilding, for independence. Erin’s own financial win isn’t indulgence; it’s validation that integrity and grit can have tangible outcomes. The riches amplify her ability to keep doing the work.Erin Brockovich remains a near-perfect blend of crowd-pleaser and conscience-raiser. It respects working-class communities, celebrates female agency without sanding off the edges, and delivers an ending that earns every cheer. Kit calls it “a biopic that respects real voices and lets a complicated woman lead without apology.” Cade describes it as “a brisk, funny legal thriller with real-world stakes and zero cape.” Both rated it 8 out of 10, agreeing that it’s the rare inspirational film that keeps its calluses.This episode was brought to you by...LocalLaundry.ca🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Some survival stories drop you in the wilderness. Others trap you in a trunk. The Call takes a confined space and turns it into a masterclass in pressure and problem-solving. Halle Berry stars as Jordan, a 911 operator whose first big call went horribly wrong—and who’s forced to face her trauma when a second girl is abducted. The clock is ticking, the call is live, and survival depends on two strangers staying calm enough to outthink a killer.It’s a thriller that never lets you breathe for too long. Jordan’s new caller, a teenage girl named Casey (Abigail Breslin), has been kidnapped and stuffed in the trunk of a car with only a borrowed phone. There’s no GPS, no name, no clear location—just fragments of sound, flashes of light, and the voice of someone trying not to panic.Cade explains why he picked it: “It’s survival in a situation, not in the elements. It’s about staying sharp when the whole thing could fall apart in seconds.” Kit agrees—and loved how the movie keeps shifting between the call center, the road, and the kidnapper’s point of view without losing focus.The movie thrives on creativity. Jordan’s calm turns into Casey’s instructions: kick out the taillight, spill paint cans to mark the route, wave to passing drivers. Every tactic feels both cinematic and plausible. Kit points out how realistic it all feels—“You start thinking through what you’d do, step by step.” Cade connects with Halle Berry’s composure: “She has to stay cool while the worst possible thing is happening on the other end. That’s leadership under fire.”It also builds its villain slowly. A normal-looking man with a job, a wife, and two kids becomes more disturbing with every clue—his home lined with childhood photos, a secret memorial to his dead sister, and a second property in the woods. By the time the story reaches that basement, we’ve learned how obsession and grief can warp into something unrecognizable.Like a lot of high-concept thrillers, it moves fast enough that logic occasionally lags behind. The final act pushes into horror territory—complete with secret rooms, scalp collections, and a showdown that’s more cathartic than realistic. Kit calls it “a little twisted, but satisfyingly so.” Cade’s take? “It’s not trying to be subtle. It’s a rollercoaster—you get on for the ride.”For Cade, The Call nails what a rewatchable thriller should be: tight, inventive, grounded in just enough realism to feel like a nightmare you could stumble into. For Kit, it’s an example of how survival doesn’t always mean the woods or the elements—it can mean keeping your voice steady when everything else is falling apart. Both hosts agree: it’s an underrated gem that deserves more credit than it ever got.This episode was brought to you by...purrclothing.ca drinknorthern.com🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

The new theme is Survival, and Kit starts us off with a film that defines it in the loneliest way possible. Sean Penn’s Into the Wild follows Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), a top-of-his-class graduate who rejects his parents’ version of success, gives away his savings, burns his IDs, and sets out across America under the alias Alexander Supertramp. His goal: Alaska. His test: how much of life’s meaning can be found when you strip away everything else.At first it feels like a road movie—the kind of restless, post-college freedom trip that turns into myth. Chris meets travelers, field workers, drifters, and an elderly widower (Hal Holbrook, quietly heartbreaking) who sees his younger self in the boy. Each encounter offers him connection, stability, maybe even love. But he keeps leaving. “It wasn’t in his plan,” Kit says. “And sometimes you have to see what happens when you walk past the plan.”From wheat fields to river rapids, from impromptu jobs to illegal kayak runs through the Grand Canyon, McCandless becomes a portrait of youthful conviction. Cade notes how the film captures that grey space between bravery and naivety: “He’s doing everything people tell you not to do—and somehow it keeps working, until it doesn’t.”Kit connects personally to the film’s search for autonomy. “Authority is a grey subject,” she says. “Sometimes honesty and curiosity open more doors than rules ever could.” Having backpacked after college herself, she recognizes that magnetic impulse to find out who you are when no one’s watching. The film’s true power lies in that recognition: adventure as mirror, not escape.Cade points out how carefully Sean Penn paces loneliness. “For a movie about isolation, it’s full of warmth,” he says. “Every side character is a lesson he could have stayed for.” The cinematography—endless skylines, cracked deserts, the green hush of Alaska—feels like both invitation and warning. Eddie Vedder’s soundtrack hums through it all like a heartbeat.At 147 minutes, it’s long, and you feel it. “It’s beautifully slow,” Cade says, “but not an easy weeknight watch.” Kit agrees: “You need space for it. The pacing makes sense artistically, but you have to surrender to it.” Still, that stretch is part of the experience—the time it takes for silence to start talking back.When Chris finally reaches Alaska, he finds an abandoned bus and the solitude he’s chased. He hunts, writes, and reflects until a small mistake—poisoned berries—turns enlightenment into tragedy. In his journal he scribbles the line that defines the film: “Happiness only real when shared.” By the time he realizes it, the river back is impassable. The same wild that made him feel free becomes the thing that keeps him there.For Kit, that ending reframes the entire story. “He didn’t fail at survival,” she says. “He just learned too late that surviving isn’t the same as living.” Cade adds, “It’s the quiet paradox—he discovers connection through isolation. That’s why it lingers.”nto the Wild is an endurance test for both its protagonist and its audience—part travel diary, part moral study. Kit calls it “a film that reminds you to question every ‘should.’” Cade describes it as “arthouse survival—hard to rewatch, impossible to forget.” Both rate it 7/10: essential once, maybe never again, but it stays with you.This episode was brought to you by...purrclothing.ca drinknorthern.com🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Cade and Kit continue their Good vs. Evil theme, and this week’s pick could not be more of a tonal whiplash from Kill Bill. After Kit made Cade watch both volumes of Tarantino’s blood-soaked revenge saga, Cade responded by choosing something brighter, cheesier, and a lot more fun: Shazam! — a superhero comedy that doesn’t take itself too seriously.From the start, confusion set the tone. Kit misheard Cade’s pick and thought they were watching Kazaam—the 90s genie movie starring Shaquille O’Neal. She spent a good five minutes talking about KFC Shaq buckets and childhood basketball memories before Cade finally realized she was reminiscing about an entirely different film. “Sometimes,” he said, “I just let her go.”The movie follows Billy Batson, a foster kid who’s been bounced between homes and constantly searches for the mother who left him. When a dying wizard grants him supernatural powers, he transforms into an adult superhero (played by Zachary Levi) whenever he shouts the word “Shazam!” What follows is a hilarious and heartfelt look at a teenager trapped in a man’s body — testing his powers, skipping school, and learning the true meaning of family.Kit, however, was skeptical. “I thought this was going to be about Shaquille O’Neal granting wishes,” she joked. But even she couldn’t resist laughing when Cade pointed out how absurd it is to watch a grown man act like an 11-year-old. “There’s something about that kind of humor that makes you wonder how you’d handle it,” she said.Cade appreciated that balance between humor and morality. “It’s the perfect good vs. evil setup,” he said. “You’ve got the Seven Deadly Sins literally walking around as monsters, but you’ve also got this villain who’s evil because he was never chosen — never loved.” The film’s antagonist, Dr. Sivana, spent his life haunted by rejection, desperate for the same power Billy stumbled into. Kit found that interesting: “It makes you ask what actually makes someone evil. Is it one bad choice? Or just not being loved enough to believe you could be good?”Where they disagreed was tone. Cade loved the corny, optimistic humor, calling it “a throwback to the 90s, when movies could be sweet and funny without needing to be cynical.” Kit, meanwhile, wanted more edge. “The evil wasn’t evil enough for me,” she said. “It’s good vs. evil, but nobody really gets hurt. If you’re going to give me seven deadly sins, I want to feel the danger.”She also wanted more physical comedy. “He never got injured learning his powers! There’s so much potential for chaos there,” she said. “If I’m watching a grown man act like a kid, I want him to accidentally fly into a lamppost or something.” Cade laughed. “You just wanted to make this Kill Bill again,” he teased.When it came time for ratings, the gap between the hosts was almost comical. Cade gave it an 8.5/10, praising its humor, family theme, and pure rewatchability. “It’s not groundbreaking, but it makes me happy,” he said. “And that still counts.”Kit gave it a 3.5/10, calling it “flat but sweet.” “It’s not that I hated it,” she clarified. “I just wanted higher stakes, darker shadows — something to earn the word ‘evil.’” Cade pointed out that her score matched his Kill Bill rating. “You watched two movies,” she reminded him. “I watched one that felt like two.”By the end of the episode, the two found themselves laughing over the gendered split in their choices. “You picked a foster kid who turns into a kind-hearted superhero,” Kit said. “I picked an assassin who kills everyone for her kid. So I think we’ve learned who’s who in this theme.”This episode was brought to you by...purrclothing.ca drinknorthern.com🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Season 3 of Cade & Kit: Stories That Stick continues with a new theme — Good vs. Evil. Kit kicked things off with an ambitious pick: Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill saga. Or as Cade calls it, “two movies disguised as one.” Kit, on the other hand, insists they’re inseparable halves of a single cinematic journey — one that follows a mother’s quest for revenge, redemption, and the reclamation of her child.This double feature sparks their biggest debate yet: is Kill Bill one story split in two, or two stories chasing the same moral question? Either way, it’s blood-soaked, beautifully choreographed, and surprisingly emotional.Kit argues that true “good” is found in the instinct to protect — and for her, Kill Bill is a story about a mother’s drive to do exactly that. The Bride (Uma Thurman) is left for dead after being ambushed at her wedding rehearsal by her former team of assassins, the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Shot in the head, she wakes from a coma years later and sets off on a mission to hunt them all down — a mission that evolves from vengeance into reclamation once she learns her daughter is alive.Cade, meanwhile, is skeptical. “You made me watch both movies,” he laughs. “I’m still waiting for the good to show up.” But as Kit points out, Volume 1 is the fight — Volume 2 is the heart.Kit’s admiration for Kill Bill goes far beyond its cult following. She loves its fusion of genre and tone — a blend of samurai film, noir, anime, and grindhouse pulp. She praises Tarantino’s “use of practical effects, long fight sequences, and music cues that feel like inside jokes for cinephiles.” From the anime flashback of O-Ren Ishii’s childhood revenge to the snow-drenched duel between The Bride and the Crazy 88, Kit calls it “a masterclass in rhythm — both musical and violent.”Cade admits that Volume 2 delivers more on that theme. He highlights Bill’s “Clark Kent monologue” — a quiet scene where David Carradine philosophizes about the nature of identity. Superman’s disguise, he explains, isn’t the cape — it’s Clark Kent himself, a caricature of weakness and normalcy. Bill uses it to justify his worldview: “You’re not pretending to be a killer, you’re pretending to be human.” Cade calls it one of the best-written moments in the film, even if “it’s buried under a mountain of blood and sword fights.”For Cade, it’s not that the movie is bad — it’s that it’s a lot. Two volumes, four hours, dozens of stylized deaths, and more “wiggling toes” than he bargained for. “It’s everything Kit loves jammed into one movie,” he jokes, “which is exactly why it’s not for me.”He also points out how Volume 1, while visually stunning, feels disconnected from the emotional weight that lands later. “Volume 2 has the theme. Volume 1 is just chaos.” Kit laughs in agreement but insists that chaos is necessary context. “You need the carnage to understand what she’s fighting for.”Kit rated Kill Bill (Volumes 1 & 2) an 8.5/10 — calling it “a near-perfect blend of violence, vulnerability, and vision.” It’s one of her personal top five films of all time. Cade, however, wasn’t convinced. “I’m not a Tarantino fan,” he confessed. “It’s too self-indulgent for me. And I lost points for having to watch two movies.” His final score: 3.5/10.Still, even he acknowledged the film’s cultural weight — from the yellow tracksuit to the unforgettable showdown with the Crazy 88. “It’s iconic,” he said, “just not for me.”This episode was brought to you by...purrclothing.ca drinknorthern.com🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

This week’s episode of Cade & Kit dives into Cade’s pick for the “Love Triangle” theme: the 2008 cultural phenomenon Twilight. While most associate the franchise with the Edward–Bella–Jacob triangle, Cade brings a different perspective: in this first installment, the triangle isn’t between two boys. It’s between Bella and two versions of her future. One rooted in familiarity and safety. The other, full of danger, chaos, and self-determination.As always, one host selects a film the other hasn’t seen (or hasn’t seen in years), and both weigh in on how it shaped them. Kit watched Twilight with fresh adult eyes, while Cade reflected on its teenage resonance and unexpected depth. What follows is a surprisingly layered conversation about agency, family, social perception, and the vampire-as-metaphor.Say what you want about the Twilight phenomenon — the first film carries surprising nuance. Kristen Stewart’s portrayal of Bella Swan leans into soft insecurity, subtle rebellion, and quiet decision-making. She’s not loud or romantic in the traditional YA sense, but she chooses with certainty, even in the face of danger. Kit noted how Bella’s choices reflected an internal compass that defied the opinions of those around her, especially her protective father and concerned peers.Cade highlighted the film’s visual metaphors — overcast skies, hushed classrooms, Edward’s restrained tension — as signals of the inner turmoil at play. Edward’s vampirism becomes a stand-in for emotional danger and romantic risk. And yet, Bella doesn’t flinch. The love triangle, then, is more existential than hormonal. Stay in her small, safe world… or leap into the unknown?Kit was quick to praise Anna Kendrick’s role as a BFF-style side character, adding levity and realism to the high school scenes. And both hosts agreed that the world-building — from Forks’ moody atmosphere to the tension between the Cullens and the local reservation — hinted at a broader mythology that held promise.For Kit, the pacing was a major flaw. The love story escalates rapidly, with only a few scenes between Bella’s initial discomfort and her willingness to risk it all. “I needed more time for the love to feel earned,” Kit said. “Curiosity? Yes. Chemistry? Sure. But love? I wasn’t sold yet.” She also pointed out missed opportunities for deeper emotion — moments of danger that felt flat or montages that could have added weight.Cade acknowledged the flaws but countered that Twilight was never meant to be a sweeping epic. “It’s easy background watching,” he admitted. “You don’t have to think too hard, but it still says something.”Kit also called out the film’s most disturbing moment — Edward admitting he watches Bella sleep. “I get it’s a vampire thing, but really?” Still, she admired how unapologetically the film leaned into the allure of danger, even if the danger didn’t always feel dangerous enough.Cade gave Twilight a 7/10, citing its surprising emotional complexity and iconic status. “There’s more going on beneath the surface,” he said, “especially when you see it as a metaphor for choosing a life outside of what your family expects.”Kit, on the other hand, gave it a 4/10. “Great performances. Loved the supporting characters. But I needed more pacing, more emotional payoff, and maybe just... more fear?” That said, she admitted watching it now — with distance from the cultural noise — was refreshing. “I might even keep watching the series, just to see how it evolves.”This episode was brought to you by...purrclothing.ca drinknorthern.com🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Welcome back to Season 3 of Cade & Kit, where each week we trade off picking movies based on a shared theme—and make the other person watch something they may not have chosen themselves. This week’s theme? Love Triangle. And Kit went full glam with her pick: Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge!, a 2001 jukebox musical that’s equal parts glitter, heartbreak, and high drama.Kit’s love for this film runs deep. Not only did it make her personal Top 5 list (again), but she came ready to unpack the artistic references, the historical nods to fin-de-siècle Paris, and how the movie’s central triangle isn’t just romantic—it’s also existential. Cade, on the other hand, hadn’t seen it in years and was curious whether it would still “slap” in 2025. Spoiler: It did.Moulin Rouge! follows Christian (Ewan McGregor), a wide-eyed writer who arrives in Paris to chase his dreams and winds up writing a play for a group of bohemians led by the eccentric Toulouse-Lautrec (yes, the real one—sort of). He’s introduced to Satine (Nicole Kidman), the sparkling courtesan and star of the Moulin Rouge, but through a classic mistaken identity, she thinks he’s the wealthy Duke who’s supposed to fund the club’s next big show.One chaotic seduction scene later (think: Nicole Kidman writhing on rugs mid-monologue), Satine realizes she’s falling for the wrong man—and that the club’s survival depends on convincing the right man to bankroll their dreams. What unfolds is a musical love story wrapped inside a fictional play that mirrors their real lives, all set in a world bursting with song mashups, absinthe, and emotional whiplash.From the jump, Kit highlights the spectacular spectacular tone—how the over-the-top musicality and color palette somehow manage to carry a deeply emotional core. She especially loves the meta-layer of the characters performing a fictional love triangle that mirrors the one they’re living in real life. And then there’s Toulouse, played with wild charm and an absinthe-soaked reverence for the arts. Kit pointed out how he’s more than comic relief—he’s the heart of the story’s artistic soul.Cade appreciated how much the music does the heavy lifting. In a film with this much plot and backstory, the songs (like “Come What May” and “Roxanne”) become efficient emotional engines. “If they just talked through all of that,” he said, “this movie would be five hours long.” Instead, the musical numbers take you deep into character feelings without ever slowing the pace.Cade admitted he almost forgets Moulin Rouge! is technically a musical. To him, it leans more drama than classic song-and-dance, and if you’re not ready for that much theatrical glitter, it can feel like a sensory overload. Kit agreed, noting that not everyone will be on board for the hyper-stylized, music-video-on-acid editing style. But for those who are? It’s magic.The love triangle itself is also more thematic than emotionally balanced. Satine isn’t really in love with the Duke—it’s a power exchange, a survival tactic. So while the stakes feel real, the romance is a bit lopsided. That said, the movie knows this and leans into the question: What do we really choose when we choose love?For Kit, Moulin Rouge! remains a near-perfect film. The aesthetics, the emotion, the historical layers—it hits every note. Cade came in with fresh eyes and was surprised by how well it held up. “I’ve watched it a few times,” he said, “and it still lands. Complete story. Emotional payoff.”Kit gave it a 9.5/10, calling it one of her all-time favorites. Cade gave it a 8.5/10, impressed by how the film’s dramatic weight balances its musical chaos.This episode was brought to you by...purrclothing.ca drinknorthern.com🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkit

We’ve reached the second half of Season 3, and this week’s episode brought us to one of the most iconic films of the ’90s: Forrest Gump. This was Cade’s pick for our “Coming of Age” theme—an unexpected but undeniably powerful choice. While it’s easy to remember the memes, the lines, and the run, we wanted to revisit Forrest Gump with fresh eyes and talk about whether it still holds up as a story about growing into yourself in a complicated world.The film follows Forrest (Tom Hanks), a man with a low IQ and a kind heart, as he stumbles through a life shaped by love, war, ping pong, and accidental brushes with history. From growing up in small-town Alabama with a fiercely loving mother to unintentionally changing the course of American culture, Forrest’s life unfolds in chapters that feel both surreal and deeply human.What surprised both of us, watching it now, is how much Forrest Gump doesn’t try to explain or justify itself. The movie just… happens. It unfolds the way memories do: out of order, overlapping, filled with details that matter more emotionally than logically. Cade noted that the film’s strength is its refusal to be clever. It isn’t ironic or self-aware. It’s earnest—and in a time when most films are trying to say something smart, Forrest Gump chooses to say something simple.We talked at length about the characters who orbit Forrest’s world, especially his mother and Jenny. Mrs. Gump (Sally Field) is a force. She doesn’t try to change Forrest—she moves the world around him to make space for who he is. That kind of unconditional love is rare in film, and it anchors Forrest’s entire journey.And then there’s Jenny.Jenny is a character who often divides viewers. Kit pointed out how deeply tragic her story is—a life shaped by early trauma, marked by moments of rebellion and escape. Forrest’s unwavering love for her is a throughline that keeps the movie emotionally grounded. Even when she disappears, she never really leaves the story. Cade described her as the person Forrest runs toward, even when he doesn’t know it.The movie’s visual style also stood out. Scenes linger longer than you expect. Silence is used meaningfully. There’s one moment after Jenny leaves where Forrest is sitting alone at home, and the stillness says more than dialogue ever could. That quiet grief is what makes the film so resonant.But we’d be lying if we said we didn’t also talk about the wild, absurd parts. Elvis learns to dance from Forrest. He survives the Vietnam War, becomes a ping pong champion, starts a shrimp empire, invests in Apple, and runs across America multiple times. It’s all ridiculous. And yet, none of it feels out of place. That’s the magic of the movie—it makes chaos feel like destiny.Cade gave Forrest Gump an 8.5, calling it a classic for a reason. Kit gave it a 7.5, loving the emotional beats but feeling that the runtime and sheer volume of plot sometimes overshadow the film’s quieter coming-of-age elements.What we both agreed on is that Forrest is a character who teaches by being. He doesn’t try to change people. He simply stays kind. In a world full of noise, his presence is what stays with you. His story isn’t about triumph in the traditional sense—it’s about resilience, and about loving people even when they don’t love you back the way you expect.This episode was brought to you by...https://fayahathletics.com/en-caValerie Dyke— Combined Insurance https://www.combinedinsurance.com/us-en/https://www.linkedin.com/in/valerie-dyke-116333259?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Filmed over 12 years with the same cast, Boyhood is a cinematic experiment that becomes something more: a lived-in portrait of growing up, told not through big milestones, but through the blurry, in-between moments that actually shape us. Richard Linklater’s film follows Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from age six to college, letting us witness the quiet evolution of one boy’s world—and the people orbiting it.🎥 The FormatThis is a story made of small scenes and long time. There’s no dramatic arc, no clear villain or climax. It feels like memory—fragmented, nonlinear, and often unremarkable until suddenly, it’s not. From mom’s new partners to a bad haircut to a whispered “I like your hair” note in class, the movie doesn’t force meaning. It invites it.✅ What Makes It WorkKit picked this one for a reason: it’s one of the purest executions of the coming-of-age genre we’ve seen. The authenticity is unmatched. No recasting. No shortcuts. Just real time, real growth. There’s a brilliance to how the film resists sensationalism. It doesn’t chase “firsts” like sex, graduation, or death. It gives equal weight to boredom, chores, and basement parties. Kit especially connected with the film’s realism around parenting—both the triumphs and the unintended harm. A dinner table shaming scene struck her so deeply, it actually informed how she now handles tough parenting moments in her own life.Cade brought a different lens: for him, this movie felt deeply familiar. Growing up in Texas, pledging allegiance to both the American and Texas flags, awkward dad weekends and road trip bonding—it wasn’t just nostalgia. It was recognition. The emotional pacing of the film mirrors how kids actually process things. Moments are absorbed, not always explained.⚠️ What Doesn’t LandFor Cade, there was a small “what if” itch—this story had the platform, the critical acclaim, and the artistic license to say anything, but it often held back. It left so much interpretation to the viewer that sometimes it felt like it avoided taking a stance. Still, that’s also part of its strength. Boyhood isn’t trying to teach—it’s trying to observe.🎯 The VerdictBoth hosts gave it an 8/10. Kit felt it was one of the best picks for the coming-of-age theme—thoughtful, patient, and emotionally rich. Cade appreciated how much it reminded him of his own childhood, especially how the film gave weight to seemingly forgettable moments. This movie doesn’t grab you. It stays with you.🍿 Pair This Movie With...– A rewatch of The Tree of Life (if you want more poetic boyhood)– Your own childhood photo album– A quiet night where you can press pause and just sit with it🎤 Cade & Kit Sign-OffKit: “I saw this in my 20s in a tiny theater in Edmonton, and I still think about that dinner table scene. I picked this movie because it shows how growing up isn’t always loud—it’s in the quiet decisions we remember later.”Cade: “I related to this one. It reminded me of the weird stuff I actually remember from childhood—the fights, the boredom, the broken promises, the drive-thru bowling alley trips. It didn’t feel like a movie. It felt like growing up.”This episode was brought to you by...https://fayahathletics.com/en-caValerie Dyke— Combined Insurance https://www.combinedinsurance.com/us-en/https://www.linkedin.com/in/valerie-dyke-116333259?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

What happens when you pick a movie based on the wrong Angelina Jolie role? In this case, you still end up with Salt—a high-octane spy thriller wrapped in Cold War shadows and moral ambiguity. Originally written for Tom Cruise, Salt follows CIA agent Evelyn Salt as she's accused of being a Russian sleeper agent and forced to go on the run, unraveling a tangled web of brainwashing, espionage, and very personal revenge.🎥 The FormatThis season, we’re choosing films for each other based on a shared theme—in this case: revenge. Cade picked Salt, thinking he was choosing Wanted, but we rolled with it anyway. The result? A conversation about identity, loyalty, and the emotional residue left behind by spy films that prioritize action but hint at something deeper. Kit came in with fresh eyes; Cade revisited the chaos with nostalgia (and a small apology).✅ What Makes It WorkAngelina Jolie delivers a strong, physical performance that anchors the entire film. From rooftop chases to venomous spider plots to handcuffed assassinations, Salt doesn't let up. What gives it staying power is the ambiguity around Salt’s motives and identity. Is she bad? Misunderstood? Redeemed? We never fully know—and that’s the intrigue. The film’s backstory (children raised to infiltrate U.S. society as sleeper agents) is chillingly clever and gives Salt’s revenge arc weight. Plus, the movie’s standout stunt work—especially that highway car-to-car chase—earned recognition and brought real grit to the genre.🎯 The VerdictBoth Cade and Kit gave Salt a 6/10. While the action thrills and Jolie shines, it didn’t quite deliver a standout revenge narrative compared to the previous episode’s pick, Colombiana. The pacing is fast, the plot is twisty, and the body count is high—but when the dust settles, you’re left wanting just a bit more depth. That said, it’s a solid entry in the female-assassin subgenre, and watching it back-to-back with other “spy-turned-rogue” films gives it new context.🍿 Pair This Movie With...A strong cup of coffee and a rainy afternoon. Bonus points if you line it up with Wanted and Colombiana for a triple-feature of badass female leads.🎤 Cade & Kit Sign-Off“This one may not have been the movie we meant to review, but it still gave us a lot to chew on. From misremembered titles to surprise endings, Salt brought enough chaos to keep us guessing—right up to the last jump from a helicopter.”— See you next episode, where it’s Kit’s turn to pick!This episode was brought to you by...https://fayahathletics.com/en-caValerie Dyke— Combined Insurance https://www.combinedinsurance.com/us-en/https://www.linkedin.com/in/valerie-dyke-116333259?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

In this episode, Kit introduces Colombiana, a high-intensity revenge thriller starring Zoë Saldana. Framed as a continuation of our Season 3 theme — "Stories That Stick" — this pick dives into the emotional power of vengeance, early trauma, and how female action protagonists are portrayed. Cade had never seen it before, making this a true first-take episode. And let’s just say... we both left the theater (or, the couch) with a lot to say.🎥 The FormatColombiana follows Cataleya, a young girl whose parents are murdered by a cartel boss in Colombia. What begins as a brutal act of violence sets her on a lifelong path of revenge. After narrowly escaping to the U.S., she’s raised by an uncle in a crime-connected family who trains her to become an assassin. By adulthood, Cataleya is executing a strategic series of kills across the country — leaving a trail of orchid-shaped clues as a message to the man who destroyed her life.The film blends kinetic action scenes with emotionally charged stakes, and Zoë Saldana’s performance elevates what could’ve been a formulaic role into something far more precise and personal.✅ What Makes It WorkKit pointed out from the beginning that Colombiana stands apart for how it refuses to over-sexualize its lead. So often in cinema, female assassins are reduced to their looks or forced into manipulative seduction tactics. Cataleya’s power comes from her intelligence, her creativity, and her relentlessness.The film’s opening 20 minutes are particularly strong — giving us a child’s-eye view of trauma, escape, and survival. The young actress portraying Cataleya as a child absolutely kills it (pun intended) with her physical stunts and layered emotional performance. Cade was especially impressed with how the film rooted Cataleya’s pain so early, which made the rest of the story feel emotionally grounded despite its high-octane pace.Once grown, Cataleya’s methodical kills — from duct vent escapes to shark-infested mansions — are presented with choreographed precision. Each scene is more than just action; it’s storytelling through movement, layout, and design.Kit also highlighted how the cinematography excels at intimacy in motion. Chase scenes are tight, up close, and viscerally felt — a signature style that made the action feel less like spectacle and more like survival.🎯 The VerdictThis was a sleeper hit for both of us. Cade gave it an 8/10, and Kit matched that with another solid 8/10. It’s sleek, stylish, and smart — without falling into the usual femme fatale tropes.It’s also a rare revenge movie that doesn’t feel exploitative. Instead of bloodlust for bloodlust’s sake, Cataleya’s violence is a direct extension of her grief and control. Every shot fired is a scream from a childhood stolen — and that’s what makes it stick.🍿 Pair This Movie With...A Xena Warrior Princess comic, a questionable bus ticket, and a conversation about the best revenge movies not led by Jason Statham.🎤 Cade & Kit sign-offWe’re officially in the revenge arc of Season 3 — and this was a strong opener. Kit’s pick gave us a new lens on action heroines, and Cade’s reaction gave us one of our favorite deep-dive convos of the season so far. Next up? Cade’s revenge movie pick. Let’s just say… it’s nothing like Colombiana.This episode was brought to you by...https://fayahathletics.com/en-caValerie Dyke— Combined Insurance https://www.combinedinsurance.com/us-en/https://www.linkedin.com/in/valerie-dyke-116333259?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Season 3 of Cade & Kit is all about “Stories That Stick” — and this week, Cade brought a bold, joyful, and unexpectedly moving pick to the table: To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar. Kit had never seen it. Cade swore it would hold up. What followed was a glowing, sequin-filled surprise.In this 1995 cult classic, three drag queens — Miss Vida Boheme (Patrick Swayze), Noxeema Jackson (Wesley Snipes), and Chi-Chi Rodriguez (John Leguizamo) — embark on a cross-country road trip that breaks down (literally and emotionally) in a small rural town. What begins as a fish-out-of-water comedy slowly reveals itself as a story about dignity, transformation, and chosen family.🎥 The FormatThis episode follows the Season 3 structure: one host picks a film that shaped them, and the other watches it for the first time. The magic lives in the friction — and in this case, the joy of rediscovery. Cade shares why this film meant so much as a teenager and reflects on what it feels like to watch it decades later, with fresh eyes.✅ What Makes It WorkLet’s start with the cast. All three leads are playing against type — and thriving. Swayze brings depth and gentleness to Vida that’s unexpected but utterly sincere. Wesley Snipes leans into charisma and comedy as Noxeema. And John Leguizamo steals the show with Chi-Chi’s radiant vulnerability.The performances never tip into caricature. Cade notes how groundbreaking it felt at the time to see drag queens as protagonists with full emotional arcs. The film is steeped in tenderness. It's not interested in mockery. It’s interested in grace — and giving its queens space to heal and to help.Kit was surprised by the structure. The town of Snydersville becomes the real stage, and the queens’ presence transforms it. Instead of action or plot-driven stakes, it’s about micro-connections — the shy woman regaining her confidence, the local mechanic opening his heart, the cop who gets exactly what he deserves.The script has its 90s quirks but leans earnestly into kindness. Even the film’s name — a line scribbled on a framed photo of Julie Newmar — becomes a thesis. Glamour can be guidance. Joy can be generosity.⚠️ What Doesn’t LandThere are a few rough patches. Some jokes feel dated. The pacing in the third act wobbles. The town’s transformation happens a little fast to be fully believable. And the film skirts around deeper queer identity politics that might be more explored in a contemporary retelling.🎯 The VerdictCade cried multiple times. Kit said, “This is what comfort cinema looks like when it also wants to say something.” The film manages to be celebratory without being naïve. And it reminded both hosts how powerful it can be to walk into a room — or a town — as your full, unapologetic self.📺 Where to WatchTo Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar is currently streaming on Apple TV and Amazon Prime (rental). Physical copies are out there too — with some glorious DVD bonus features.🍿 Pair This Movie With...A lavender cocktail, a mirrorball, and someone who makes you feel like you can say the thing you’ve been holding in all week. Or maybe a rewatch of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert if you want to keep the drag road trip vibes going.Next week, Kit returns the favor with a pick of her own: a movie Cade’s never seen — and one that might bring up just as many feelings. See you then.This episode was brought to you by...https://fayahathletics.com/en-caValerie Dyke— Combined Insurance https://www.combinedinsurance.com/us-en/https://www.linkedin.com/in/valerie-dyke-116333259?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Season 3 launches with a new format: every episode, one host picks a personal film and the other watches it for the first time. Then they come together to unpack what it meant back then — and what it says now.To kick things off, Kit picks The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, a 2005 coming-of-age film about four best friends who spend their first summer apart — connected only by a magical pair of jeans. But this isn’t just about pants. It’s a story about grief, growing up, and the unspoken ways friendship holds people together.Kit shares why the film meant so much to her as a teenager, while Cade — who usually leans toward stylized horror and arthouse indies — watches it for the first time. What follows is a real-time reappraisal of a film that’s often overlooked, despite being emotionally layered and deeply sincere.🎥 The FilmDirected by Ken Kwapis and based on Ann Brashares' novel, Sisterhood follows four storylines:Lena (Alexis Bledel) falls in love while visiting family in Greece.Tibby (Amber Tamblyn) befriends a younger girl with terminal illness.Carmen (America Ferrera) confronts her absentee father.Bridget (Blake Lively) uses soccer and a summer fling to avoid her grief.Each arc hits different emotional notes — some subtle, some devastating. Kit talks about how rare it was to see this kind of emotional range in teen girls on screen. Cade, meanwhile, was surprised by how heavy it gets — in a good way.💬 What They Talk AboutWhy this film deserves more critical respect — beyond nostalgia.The strength of Ferrera and Tamblyn’s performances.Cade’s mixed feelings on the “magic jeans” metaphor.How grief, abandonment, and identity are handled without over-explaining.The early 2000s aesthetic — and why it works in the film’s favor.Whether the four-storyline structure helps or dilutes emotional weight.👀 What Surprised CadeHe expected something light. He got something emotionally intense — especially in Tibby’s storyline. He also didn’t expect to be pulled into the pacing, which is quieter and more grounded than the trailer suggests.🎯 Final ThoughtsKit calls it one of the first movies that made her feel seen. Cade acknowledges that while it’s not perfect, it’s emotionally honest — and more powerful than its genre label implies. Together, they agree that some movies aren’t just stories; they’re time capsules for who you were when you watched them.This episode was brought to you by...https://fiyahwear.com/Valerie Dyke https://www.combinedinsurance.com/us-en/🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

No theme, no prep — just Cade and Kit asking each other completely different, totally unserious (and somehow revealing?) questions. From comfort rewatches to movie pet peeves, desert island picks to wild film takes, these two go off-script and into the heart of what makes their film brains tick. It’s a laid-back, get-to-know-you episode with the exact kind of banter that never makes it into the polished reviews. One episode is Cade grilling Kit. The next is Kit turning the tables. Both? Peak chaos.🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

With Season 3 on the way (dropping August 14!), Cade puts Kit through a chaotic, cozy round of rapid-fire film questions—from her dream recast (spoiler: it’s Blake Lively, and she means it) to the horror film that scarred her forever. We get deep on fashion, friendship, and freaky endings, and somehow Bugs Bunny ends up in the roommate conversation. Just a casual little hangout before things get serious again. Part two coming soon—when Kit gets to flip the script. 👀🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Season 3 is almost here 🎬 and this time, Cade & Kit are getting personal. Stories That Stick is all about the movies that shaped us—those first-watch gut punches, the late-night rewatches, and the ones your best friend swore would change your life. We're diving into the films that turned us into cinephiles, including a few surprises we haven’t seen yet from each other’s lists. Expect every genre, first reactions, and way more community voices. New episodes start August 14th. Let’s get nostalgic.🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

We made it to the end of Season 2. Thirteen horror films, dozens of emotional reactions, and at least two scream-induced shivers later, Cade & Kit are looking back at the creepiest, wildest, most memorable genre entries of 2024 — and handing out their personal top 3.This episode isn't just a ranking — it's a conversation about how horror keeps surprising us. From micro-budget debuts to A-list creature features, Season 2 gave us a full spectrum of weird, wild, and WTF. Some films challenged our expectations, others broke our hearts, and one gave us permanent shrimp-sound trauma (thanks, Substance).Cade & Kit rewatch, relive, and roast their way through all 13 horror picks from 2024 — from Immaculate to Longlegs — with candid reactions, surprising takeaways, and a deep dive into what genre storytelling really demands.Season recap episode featuring real-time reflections, ranking rehashes, and the reveal of Cade & Kit’s personal top 3 horror picks of the year.The raw honesty. From “that was napworthy” to “I still don’t want to talk about The Coffee Table,” Cade & Kit go beyond plot points and into what stuck emotionally — character depth, sound design, pacing, and how different horror subgenres hit differently. We loved the tension between Cade’s hunger for craft and Kit’s growing genre appreciation. Also: hilarious as always.Justice for Red Rooms. And Late Night with the Devil. Kit said it best: “Seen better.” A few titles didn’t hold up under rewatch, and Cade admits to being way more critical than expected — especially when story lacked emotional payoff or character depth. A nap was taken. It’s fine.One of the best surprises this season was how budget didn’t predict impact. In a Violent Nature slayed with ~$250K CAD. Longlegs proved $10M can go a long way. Meanwhile, some flashier titles didn’t hit as hard. Cade & Kit discuss why performance, pacing, and direction matter more than the dollar signs — and how different price points shape expectations.Season 2 made us rethink the horror label entirely. Kit realized she actually likes genre (who knew?), and Cade doubled down on character-led storytelling as a non-negotiable. They laughed, cringed, and dissected everything from folklore slasher structure to demonic wardrobes to the MTV-editing of I Saw the TV Glow. Most importantly, they found out what scares them — and each other.Many of these titles are currently on VOD or playing at genre festivals. Keep an eye out for Oddity, In a Violent Nature, and Substance in particular — Cade & Kit's top 3 personal picks.🍿 Pair This Episode With...— Snack: Cold shrimp cocktail (if you know, you know)— Drink: Something blood red in a wine glass, just to keep it spooky— Activity: Re-rank your own horror list while arguing with your film club bestieThanks for joining us all season long. Season 3 will be very different — and we can’t wait to tell you more. Until then, follow @cadeandkit for more weird gems, weirder takes, and maybe a few non-horror surprises. 💀🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

It’s 1974. A cryptic serial killer known only as Long Legs is leaving behind a string of murders tied to occult symbols and coded messages. Enter FBI agent Lee Harker (Maika Monroe), an intuitive and emotionally reserved profiler whose connection to the case runs deeper than expected. As the bodies pile up, Harker must navigate her own past, psychic intuition, and a very real evil to stop a killer that might not be entirely human.🎥 The FormatDirected by Osgood Perkins, Long Legs leans fully into analog dread. It’s a retro-styled procedural horror film soaked in grainy film textures, oppressive stillness, and surreal editing. Think Zodiac meets Hereditary, with Nicolas Cage showing up in a deeply disturbing third-act reveal as the titular killer — more demon than man.There’s not a ton of dialogue. And the quiet? It’s weaponized. Scenes hang just a beat too long, or cut away just before resolution, making you sit in the discomfort. And it works.✅ What Makes It WorkThe atmosphere is masterfully crafted. Cade called it “true analog horror” — and not in the jump-scare, VHS-core way. It’s slow evil. The film uses silence, shadow, and suggestion to dig under your skin.Kit was especially struck by how the movie forces you to feel what Harker feels without spoon-feeding exposition. You’re as unsettled and unsure as she is, which makes the psychic subplot feel earned, not gimmicky.And then there's Nicolas Cage. His screen time is limited, but unforgettable. It's Cage as a full-blown nightmare, draped in hair and whispered menace. The decision to hold back his presence until late in the game? Genius.⚠️ What Doesn’t LandThe film’s ambiguity will either fascinate or frustrate. You won’t get clean answers. In fact, you may leave the theater asking, “Wait, what was that ending?”Also, the slow pacing — which we loved — might test the patience of anyone expecting a more conventional thriller. It’s not here to entertain you with action. It wants to haunt you.🎯 The VerdictKit gave it an 7.5. Cade gave it a 7. This is elevated horror that isn’t trying to be “elevated.” It’s just good — weird, nerve-rattling, and surprisingly intimate.Expect this one to be divisive, but for horror fans who like their nightmares slow-burned and whisper-quiet, Long Legs will crawl under your skin and stay there.📺 Where to WatchCurrently in theaters via NEON. Check local listings — especially for smaller indie cinemas.🍿 Pair This Movie With...Snack: A black-and-white cookie (comforting but eerie in its duality)Drink: Cold coffee with a splash of something strangeActivity: Rewatch The Ring or Zodiac for that same creeping dreadIf The Silence of the Lambs and The Babadook had a cursed VHS baby raised on true crime podcasts — this would be it. Disturbing. Artful. Unforgettable.And yes... we’re still thinking about that hair.🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

📹 The PremiseEggers reimagines the 1922 silent classic as a gothic fever dream soaked in death, desire, and deterioration. This version follows Thomas Hutter (Nicholas Hoult) and his increasingly cursed fiancée Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) as Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) spreads his plague of decay from a distant castle to their urban doorstep. It’s less about plot, more about mood—and the mood is rot.🎥 The FormatDreamlike horror, soft dialogue, and long, unblinking stares into the darkness. Eggers leans into texture: the echo of footsteps, flickering candlelight, and the creeping sensation that everyone on screen has already died, they just don’t know it yet.✅ What Makes It WorkCade called it “straight-up haunting”—especially the shadow work and final act. Kit praised the commitment to stillness: actors barely speak, and when they do, it’s like interrupting a séance. The decision to use practical effects and old-world cinematography gives it a “rotted fairytale” look that feels unique, not gimmicky.⚠️ What Doesn’t LandIt’s not trying to be accessible. The pacing is brutal. Cade joked that it was “like watching a corpse model for oil painters.” Kit mentioned that some viewers might call it boring—but for them, the tension worked because it never tried to explain itself. If you’re not already in, you won’t be pulled in.💸 Should It Have a Bigger Budget?Kit: “No—it looks exactly how it should. Money would’ve ruined the texture.”Cade: “This is the rare case where grime is the point. Let it rot.”🎯 The VerdictA slow-burn horror poem that leaves claw marks instead of jump scares. If you want your vampires romantic, this ain’t it. If you want them filthy, uncanny, and terrifying—this is for you.— Cade’s Score: 4.5/10— Kit’s Score: 4/10🍿 Pair This Movie With...Snack: stale bread and red wine (don’t ask why, just go with it)Drink: absinthe you don’t finishActivity: write a letter with a fountain pen, burn it, then stare into the smoke🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

Two radically different horror films. One’s all chaos, blood, and neon body horror. The other is slow, quiet, and hypnotic — like a nature doc if the subject was a reanimated killer. In this episode, we’re talking The Substance and In a Violent Nature, both from Variety’s Top 13 of the year, and we’re still kind of haunted.📹 The PremiseThe Substance follows a woman who tries a mysterious program promising perfection — but ends up splitting into two versions of herself. It’s gooey, stylish, and unhinged.In a Violent Nature flips the slasher format, giving us the killer’s POV in long, still takes across empty woods and forgotten cabins.🎥 The FormatIt’s a double feature breakdown — one maximalist, one minimalist — and somehow they both reinvent horror in totally different directions. Cade & Kit dig into the risks, the pacing, and what it means when horror stops trying to explain itself.✅ What Makes It WorkThe Substance hits hard with practical effects, bold visuals, and a lead performance from Demi Moore that deserves every bit of attention. It’s like Videodrome meets Showgirls and then takes a baseball bat to the mirror.In a Violent Nature is mesmerizing in its restraint. No music cues. No shaky cam. Just dread building slowly with every steady frame.⚠️ What Doesn’t LandKit wanted The Substance to pull back a little in the third act — it gets wild and doesn’t always earn it.Cade felt In a Violent Nature could lose some viewers with its pacing — it’s not here to entertain, it’s here to watch you watch.💸 Should It Have a Bigger Budget?The Substance looks expensive and delivers on every dollar.In a Violent Nature thrives on its lo-fi approach — it doesn’t need polish, it needs patience.🎯 The VerdictCade: “One of the most visually committed horror films I’ve seen in a while. It knows exactly what it wants to do and does not care if you’re ready.”Kit: “I thought In a Violent Nature would be a gimmick. It’s not. It’s weirdly moving. Quietly brutal. It just sits with you.”📺 Where to WatchThe Substance is slated for release later this year.In a Violent Nature is streaming and in limited theatrical run now.🍿 Pair This Movie With...Snack: Raspberry jam on white breadDrink: A cocktail that looks delicate but hits like a truckActivity: Staring in the mirror a little too long, then walking outside without your phoneThe SubstanceCade: 9/10Kit: 8/10In a Violent NatureCade: 8/10Kit: 8.5/10This is horror turned inside out. One rips through your screen, the other stands silently in the woods. Either way — you’ll feel it the next morning.Come argue with us on Instagram @cadeandkit. Or just lurk. That’s fine too.🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

A high-IQ fashion model living in a downtown Montreal high-rise becomes disturbingly obsessed with a local murder trial involving a potential serial killer. As the court case unfolds, she’s not on the jury—just an observer—but her fixation deepens until she begins navigating the dark web in search of a rumored third “red room” video: a brutal murder-for-pay livestream that might confirm the accused killer’s guilt.🎥 We follow her increasingly erratic behavior, from alleyway overnights outside the courthouse to Bitcoin bidding wars on encrypted servers. Her motivations remain murky. Her methods are unsettling. And her descent into the digital underworld comes with zero explanation.🎥 The FormatThis is high-art-meets-slow-burn courtroom noir. French language. Stark cinematography. Minimal score. Nearly two hours of silence, smooth tracking shots, and deeply ambiguous character work.✅ French-Canadian courtroom✅ Fashion meets forensic obsession✅ Dark web red room bidding✅ Woman-on-the-verge pacing✅ What Makes It Work​Lead performance: The actress playing Kelly-Anne carries every close-up with unnerving restraint. No dialogue, just haunted microexpressions.​Use of tech themes: AI assistants, Bitcoin transactions, and deep web culture are woven into the story in ways that feel strangely grounded.​Art direction: Cold color palette, clean lines, elegant production choices that mirror the lead’s inner disconnection.⚠️ What Doesn’t Land​Zero character backstory: We never learn why she’s obsessed. It’s not trauma, grief, or justice. It’s just... there.​Major plot holes: She disappears into alleyways, randomly destroys her AI, infiltrates the dark web like a pro, and the van parked outside? Never explained.​Pacing: 118 minutes of slow zooms and smoothie preparation. The entire first hour could’ve been 10 minutes.​Emotional flatline: The story is isolated, sterile, and emotionless—even when portraying violent crimes. There’s no attachment, no stakes, no catharsis.💸 Should It Have a Bigger Budget?No. The visuals and tone matched the story’s minimalist, psychological intent. But a bigger budget wouldn’t solve its fundamental problem: it’s all atmosphere, no heartbeat.🎯 The VerdictCade: 5.0Kit: 1.0“We paid $7 for this and took a nap. That’s our review.”This one’s more arthouse than horror. It belongs in a gallery with headphones—not a genre list. Strong performances can’t save a story with no emotional spine.📺 Where to WatchStreaming rental on Amazon Prime Video.🍿 Pair This Movie With...​Snack: Unseasoned almonds in a highball glass​Drink: Still water, served cold​Activity: Taking a 40-minute nap and pretending you didn’t miss anything (because you didn’t)🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

🎬 Late Night with the Devil (2024)📹 The SetupA late-night talk show host hits his breaking point during Halloween sweeps in the 1970s—and decides to go full spectacle. Paranormal guests. Hypnotists. Psychic children. A live studio audience. And one infamous book called Talking With the Devil. It’s all supposed to boost ratings. Until it turns into something a little too real.🎥 The film plays out like a behind-the-scenes broadcast, blending on-air drama with backstage descent. A slow burn where the lines between suggestion, possession, and madness start to blur.🎥 The FormatA “found footage” horror setup staged like a retro talk show, complete with broadcast transitions, commercial bumpers, and live-audience chaos. Everything starts tongue-in-cheek—and ends with a demon on stage.✅ 70s live TV setting✅ Studio crew walkouts✅ A hypnotist with too much power✅ Ratings-obsessed host spiraling✅ What Makes It Work​Incredible set design: The production nails the 70s aesthetic. From the studio layout to the graphics, every visual detail adds to the eerie realism.​Clever broadcast framing: Black-and-white shots signal backstage moments, while vivid color captures live TV. It helps guide the viewer through what’s real—or at least what’s being aired.◦Strong central concept: The idea of desperation pushing someone too far on live TV is compelling. You want to buy into the stakes.​⚠️ What Doesn’t Land◦Storyline feels muddy: Too many angles (grief, demons, cults, ratings, hypnosis, ghosts) without any clear message.◦Performance tone is confusing: Acting veers between campy and deadpan with little emotional core to hold onto.◦No emotional payoff: For all the buildup, the climax and ending feel confusing rather than cathartic.◦Too many ideas, not enough execution: Some scenes (like the ghost wife, worm hallucination, or cult hints) felt like art house distractions rather than plot progression.​💸 Should It Have a Bigger Budget? No, the budget worked for what it was. The visuals and production design were strong. It just needed a tighter script and clearer emotional arc—not more money.🎯 The VerdictCade: 3.0Kit: 3.0“We liked the set. That’s about it.”If you’re big into 70s aesthetics, you might appreciate the vibe. If you’re looking for horror with substance—or even just coherence—this probably isn’t it. One of those “the trailer was better” situations.📺 Where to WatchStreaming on Shudder and select platforms. Not a Shudder original, but part of their catalog.🍿 Pair This Movie With...◦Snack: Half a granola bar (because you won’t be hungry after Act 2)◦Drink: A lukewarm coffee from a Styrofoam cup◦Activity: Reading Reddit threads about movies with “great concepts, bad delivery”​🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkit

📹 The SetupIt’s been thirteen years since the last Final Destination film—and now, death is back on the big screen. We caught Bloodlines at our local Cineplex VIP theater in Calgary (shoutout to the Uni District team, who always treat us well). Expectations were high, the theater was packed, and yes… we made sure not to drive behind any logging trucks. Ever. Again.🎥 The sixth installment in the franchise manages to be both a tribute and a reboot, bringing back the dread, the algorithmic unraveling of fate, and the kind of creative kill sequences that made this series iconic in the first place.🎥 The FormatThis one follows the franchise blueprint: a narrow escape from death kicks off a domino effect, as those who “should’ve died” start getting picked off one by one. Only this time, the curse is generational—and the original event dates back to the 1950s.✅ Premonition✅ Family Trauma✅ Isolated Grandma in the Woods✅ Death’s Algorithm Returns✅ What Makes It Work​Standalone but still loyal: Even if you’ve never seen a Final Destination movie, this works on its own. If you have, the callbacks are satisfying but never overdone.​Genuinely good story: The multi-generational thread, journal of death patterns, and dream sequences added actual emotional depth to the formula.​Inventive kills: We’re talking “never-seen-that-before” territory. Suspenseful setups, sharp timing, and clever payoffs. Cade nerded out trying to figure out how they pulled them off.​Excellent tone balance: There’s comedy, dread, and chaos in all the right doses. You feel the audience waiting for that next death to drop.⚠️ What Doesn’t LandHonestly, not much. If you hate jump scares or the build tension, release with blood formula, this isn’t going to convert you. But for genre fans, it’s a tight, respectful return to form.💸 Should It Have a Bigger Budget?Honestly, it looked great as is. This didn’t scream needs a Marvel budget. The effects, especially the practical ones, were sharp. That said, if there is a seventh installment, we’d love to see them really go for it in terms of set pieces and broader scope.🎯 The VerdictCade: 7.5Kit: 7.5“A complete, entertaining return. We’d watch another.”This was smart horror that didn’t take itself too seriously but didn’t get lazy either. A film with strong genre roots that somehow still found new tricks to pull out of the bag. Definitely recommend seeing this in theaters—especially with an audience. The shared gasps and laughs were part of the fun.📺 Where to WatchIn theaters now (VIP if you’re lucky enough to have one). Not yet available on streaming.🍿 Pair This Movie With...​Snack: Sour Cherry Blasters (they look like blood clots—perfect)​Drink: A crisp fountain Coke with too much ice​Activity: Scrolling Reddit threads about the worst Final Destination kills (while safely on your couch, nowhere near sharp objects)We’re real people. Doing real reviews. And this time… we sat nowhere near glass, scaffolding, or rollercoasters. Just in case.👋 Until next time, stay alive out there.🎧 Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2kaH2BpUcEouX5LWCUQ7ed?si=ff1e2b355c5944e1🍏 Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cade-and-kit/id1771553610📸 Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/cadeandkithttps://[email protected]

In this special CUFF edition, Cade & Kit interview the team behind Love Will Tear Us Apart — a gory, playful, body-horror short that opened to laughter, gasps, and full festival applause. Joining the conversation:​Carter Dodd (Lead Actor)​Elijah Ziegler (Writer/Director)​Skyler Grey(Co-star)Produced by Carmen🎥 Love Will Tear Us Apart screened at CUFF 2025 ahead of the feature Sugar Rot and immediately set the tone with its camp-meets-creep chemistry, expressive makeup, and killer premise.✅ The PremiseOriginally written by Ziegler as a gift to his girlfriend (and the film’s producer/editor), Love Will Tear Us Apart began as a spiritual rebuttal to his earlier short The Lamb — “a relationship bummer,” in his words. Wanting to write a love story that still carried genre flair, Ziegler imagined a film about two people literally tearing themselves apart in the name of devotion.💡 “I didn’t connect with my first film anymore. I wanted to write something that felt like love — but still really weird.”🎤 Favorite Behind-the-Scenes Moments💉 Skyler (on body horror makeup):“I was walking around without an eye for most of the shoot. I wiped off the wrong one by accident and had a full meltdown about it. But I loved being disgusting. I love SFX makeup. The grosser the better.”🦷 Carter (on his fake teeth gag):“I have crowns, and we tried to put a fake goofy tooth on top... it kept falling off mid-scene. We were crying with laughter trying to shoot it.”💋 Elijah (on gooey kisses):“Absolutely the kiss. So much slime. Just two characters kissing covered in blood and goop. Everyone was gagging.”🎞️ Their Film Family Origin StoryThe trio met through film school, though not all in the same classes. Skyler came into the audition room starstruck by Carmen (the producer). Carter and Elijah had worked together on The Lamb. Skyler:“I just wanted Carmen to think I was cool. And now they’re some of my favorite people.”🎯 Why It WorkedThe short became a standout at CUFF for its balance of absurdity and earnestness. Cade & Kit noted that many comedies miss the mark on tone — but not this one. Ziegler emphasized that characters must play it straight. The laugh comes from how much they believe what they’re doing.💬 “We wrote 24 drafts. We massaged it until it landed, but everyone on set just got the tone. It’s dumb — but it’s smart-dumb.”🍿 Favorite Horror Films🎭 Carter: Terrifier 2“It’s gory and fun — and Art the Clown feels like Jim Carrey if he was a serial killer. That’s a compliment.”🧬 Skyler: The Substance“It changed my life. As a woman in this industry, it felt so visceral. Horror is the genre that’s brave enough to say it out loud.”🔪 Elijah: Inside (2007 French horror)“It just punches you in the face. Scary, bold, never flinching. We need more horror like that.”🎤 Final WordThis team brought more than a short — they brought chemistry, clarity, and chaos. And they left Cade & Kit fully convinced that they’ve just seen the beginning of a long creative run.🎯 “It created love… and we still have all our limbs.”Visit Love Will Tear Us Apart's InstagramOur Links🎧 S⁠⁠potify⁠⁠ 🍏 ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts ⁠⁠📸 ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠Read the blog!⁠⁠[email protected]

In this special CUFF 2025 edition, Cade & Kit sit down with Jacob Skrzypa, one of the producers (and many other roles) behind Vampire Zombies from Space!, one of the standout crowd favorites at the festival. They talk satire, indie filmmaking, genre tone, casting with intention, and how to fight severed legs with sincerity.On the Premise“It’s exactly what it sounds like — a parody of 1950s horror and sci-fi with vampires, zombies, and UFOs. Dumb on purpose, smart in structure.”On What It Took to Make It“Everything you shouldn’t do in a first indie: period piece, practical effects, miniatures, vehicles, a big cast… We did all of it. It took a whole army of artists who believed in the ridiculous.”On the Art of Comedy“You have to play it straight. The characters think it’s real. The minute you wink at the camera, the joke dies. Our greaser’s crying about a threesome — and to him, it matters.”On Favorite Moments​Watching the general character monologue in one take.​The greaser vs. severed legs fight scene.​The would-be patriot who tries to rally the town... into a mass suicide.On the Cast​“We lost our union cast due to COVID and had to pivot.”​“We brought in cult icons (Judith O’Dea, Lloyd Kaufman), rising actors from Windsor and Toronto, and even local non-actors.”​“The town mayor plays a guy who delivers a line totally wrong — which made it exactly right.”On the Deleted Ending“The scene where the guy kills himself during a speech? That was the ending at first. The whole town was going to follow. We rewrote it to give audiences a better payoff.”On Genre Influence​Inspired by Mel Brooks, Ed Wood, Monty Python.​Wanted everything around the parody to feel real — costumes, FX, miniatures.​“An earnest approach to idiocy.”On Favorite Horror FilmThe Exorcist.Jacob saw it at age 8 — alone, Catholic, with no warning. “It scared the hell out of me… and changed everything. It’s beautiful, the effects hold up, and it stuck with me forever.”On What’s Next​Short film in development (possibly for Fantasia).​Feature script in the works: Canada Day — a slasher in the same tone as Vampire Zombies from Space!🎯 Final TakeJacob’s team didn’t just make a cult film — they engineered a midnight classic. This isn’t a movie you laugh at; it’s one you laugh with. Passion project energy. A new Halloween staple in the making.🧛‍♂️👽🧟‍♂️ We’ll be first in line for Canada Day.Links for crewThe FilmDirected by Mike StaskoWriter, Producer: Editor Jakob Skrzypa Writer, Producer: Alexander FormanDOPCastAndrew BeeOliver GeorgiouJessica AntovskiRashaun BaldeoCraig GlosterRobert KemenyDavid Liebe HartLloyd Kaufman Our Links🎧 S⁠potify⁠ 🍏 ⁠Apple Podcasts ⁠📸 ⁠Instagram⁠⁠Read the blog!⁠[email protected]⁠

To close out CUFF 2025, we’re wrapping three very different films that somehow all deserve their own weird little spotlight.A genre-defying documentary, a cult-ready horror comedy, and a ghost story about podcasting clout walked into a film festival… and we sat through all three.🎤 Luna: The LUNA Vachon Story – Raw, Real & Rock 'n RollAn unexpectedly emotional documentary on legendary female wrestler Luna Vachon — a true trailblazer in a male-dominated arena.📼 Archival interviews, raw home video, and deeply personal storytelling💄 Luna’s punk-metal chaos meets real-life trauma and triumph🎤 From pro wrestling highs to battles with addiction, the film doesn’t flinch… but it doesn’t drown in darkness either.🧠 Thoughtful and surprisingly uplifting. A time capsule and a tribute.📊 Our Scores: Cade – 7, Kit – 7📚 Worth watching even if you’re not a wrestling fan. This is about legacy.🦇 Vampire Zombies... From Space! – Black-and-White B-Movie BrillianceMidnight movie lovers, rejoice. This is camp done right.🕺🏽 1950s sci-fi parody with pitchforks, pink bats, and perfectly stupid deaths🧛‍♂️ Alien vampires crash in a tobacco town… and cigarettes save the day👻 A cult classic in the making, best watched with a crowd that yells back💬 From “From Space!” chants to dangling bat puppets — this is Halloween party material.📊 Our Scores: Cade – 7, Kit – 7🎉 Bonus points for the ending twist and the abandoned group suicide subplot.👻 The Last Podcast – Haunted Clout, Podcast Regret, & Shower GhostsOne man, one mic, one ghost. All for the views.🎙️ A skeptical podcaster goes viral when a guest shoots himself live on air🫥 Ghosts with stipulations, accidental murders, rival podcasters, and moral implosions🧼 Male shower scenes, ET nods, and tech-based horror commentary💔 It’s funny… until it tries to be deep. Female characters deserved more.📊 Our Scores: Cade – 6.5, Kit – 5.5🎧 Good enough to stream. Not strong enough to revisit.🍿 Cade & Kit Pairing Picks (CUFF Pt. 3 Edition):​Drink: Pre-workout for Luna, spiked soda for Vampire Zombies, and something lukewarm and caffeinated for The Last Podcast​Snack: Pop Rocks (because you need chaos)​Activity: Make a playlist that goes from metal scream intros to 1950s sci-fi jingles💬 CUFF brought us some of the weirdest, smartest, and most sincere indie films we've seen this year. We laughed, we squirmed, we maybe blushed during Sugar Rot. But most importantly — we watched.🎧 Spotify 🍏 Apple Podcasts 📸 InstagramRead the [email protected]

We’re back with Part 2 of our Calgary Underground Film Festival recap — and this one’s all about unexpected pairings. We watched a double-feature that had everything from underwater creatures to exhibitionist neighbors… and we’re still processing.Here’s what happened when we watched A Mother’s Embrace and Two Women back to back — because nothing says “emotional range” like a tentacle demon followed by a French comedy about self-discovery and awkward flirting.🐙 A Mother’s Embrace – Suspenseful, Alien & UnnervingA Spanish-language creature feature that actually had us on the edge of our seats. From the eerie nursing home setting to the terrifying underwater sequences, this one felt like The Descent meets Guillermo del Toro — if Guillermo was sadder and more flooded.💧 Woman with trauma returns to the source of her past🏚️ Nursing home + storm + creepy staff = instant tension🦑 Cult behavior, missing responders, and one truly wild tentacled being🧠 It doesn’t explain everything — but it doesn’t need to. It’s high-suspense horror that earns its scares without cheap tricks.📊 Our Scores: Kit – 8.5, Cade – 9🔁 Rewatch Status: HIGH. We might’ve missed something. Or a lot.🇫🇷 Two Women – Funny, French, and Deeply HumanA slice-of-life comedy that’s somehow about postpartum recovery, aging, bisexuality, meds, marriage, divorce, exhibitionism, and cooperative garden planning. It’s messy, honest, and weirdly sweet.🏠 Two neighbors form a friendship that turns into a liberation spiral📦 From baby monitors to rat control to hired flings — it’s chaos💬 Delivered with humor, charm, and just enough absurdity to make you laugh out loudThink: “Eat Pray Love” but in a Montreal apartment building with a crow screaming through the wall. And somehow it all works.📊 Our Scores: Kit – 7, Cade – 7🍷 Watch With: Your friends, your siblings, or even your mom (but maybe not your boss)🍿 Cade & Kit Pairing Picks (CUFF Pt. 2 Edition):​Drink: Electrolytes (after the flood) + French red wine (after the neighbor seduction)​Snack: Something crunchy to stress-eat while trying to decipher the cult ritual​Activity: Whisper-laughing “what is happening” during A Mother’s Embrace, then quoting Two Women on the ride home💬 Have you ever seen two more opposite movies in one night? Which would you rather survive: a psychic sea creature ceremony, or an awkward apartment affair? Tell us.🎧 ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠🍏 ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠📸 ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Read the Blog⁠⁠[email protected]⁠

Welcome to our special edition episode recapping the Calgary Underground Film Festival (CUFF) — the hometown festival where Cade & Kit first became… well, Cade & Kit.From April 17–27, we saw a whirlwind of premieres, shorts, genre surprises, and more bodily fluids than we were prepared for. We interviewed filmmakers, brought a crowd, and left with our minds full and stomachs slightly unsettled.Here’s our full recap — five films, five moods, and one very haunted rug.🎞️ SHORT #1: Love Will Tear Us ApartCampy, cute, and covered in blood. This Denver-made short follows a couple who literally rip themselves apart to show how much they love each other.💘 Candy-colored gore meets relationship boundaries🩸 Eyeballs, limbs, and a perfectly cheesy closing shot🎭 Fun premiere with a sweet team behind it📊 Our Scores: Kit – 5, Cade – 5🍦 FEATURE #1: Sugar RotWhere do we begin. Visually sweet, narratively sour, and uncomfortably explicit, this body horror metaphor explores a young woman’s descent into sugary self-destruction. Cotton candy… everywhere.🚨 Not a first-date movie🎡 Ambitious concept, strong lead actress🎧 But the audio? Wildly distracting📊 Our Scores: Kit – 1.5, Cade – 2🧼 SHORT #2: The RugA senior finds a cursed rug that eats anything swept underneath. Yes, it’s amazing. And yes, we want this to become a feature film with knitting club elders and blood-thirsty carpeting.🎬 High production value and sharp writing🎭 A cast of older actors that carried the short🚪 Clever setup, great payoff📊 Our Scores: Kit – 4.5, Cade – 6🔥 FEATURE #2: Portal to HellIt starts strong — great color, great concept (a literal portal to hell inside a laundromat). But the middle? Sleepy. And the end? Beautiful again. Mostly.🌀 Gorgeous red/blue/yellow neon visuals👹 Campy setup, slow execution🙃 Needed to lean more into the absurd📊 Our Scores: Kit – 4.5, Cade – 5🕊️ FEATURE #3: Shadow of GodCalgary-made, locally cast, and bold enough to drop an exorcism film on Easter Monday. This one mixed religious horror with cult mythology and unexpected VFX (for better or worse).💥 Strong opening with chilling visuals and lore👁️ Highlights: the caffeine-gel cross transition, the double-nailing exorcism ritual🌌 Lowlights: end-of-days green screen energy that pulled us all the way out📊 Our Scores: Kit – 4.5, Cade – 6.5🍿 Cade & Kit Pairing Picks (CUFF Edition):​Drink: Whatever 88 Brewing had on tap (plus a strong espresso for Portal to Hell)​Snack: Popcorn, vegan chocolate, and deep regret about that one ice cream scene​Activity: Whispering “what is happening” every 10 minutes in the dark with your friends beside you💬 Did you go to CUFF this year? What’d you love? What traumatized you? What do you wish you saw? Let us know — or join us next year. There’s always a seat saved for you.🎧 ⁠Spotify⁠🍏 ⁠Apple Podcasts⁠📸 ⁠Instagram⁠ ⁠⁠Read the Blog⁠[email protected]