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/cadeandkit

info@CadeandKit.com

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/cadeandkit

info@CadeandKit.com

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/cadeandkit

info@CadeandKit.com

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/cadeandkit

info@cadeandkit.com

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/cadeandkit

info@CadeandKit.com

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/cadeandkit

info@CadeandKit.com

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/cadeandkit

info@CadeandKit.com

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/cadeandkit

info@CadeandKit.com