July 13, 2026
Jumbled Journeys: 'A Private Life's Struggle for Clarity'
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Youtube Music 
Spreaker 
PocketCasts 
TuneIn 
Overcast 
Castro 
RSS Feed In this episode of *Movies First*, Chris and Jessica dissect the ambitious yet chaotic film *A Private Life*, a unique blend of psychological thriller, comedy, and murder mystery that strives to captivate but often confounds. The hosts delve into the intricate premise surrounding psychiatrist Lillian Steiner, played by the talented Jodie Foster, whose life spirals as she grapples with the mysterious death of her patient, Paula. With elements of hypnosis and past life connections thrown into the mix, the film's narrative becomes a tangled web of competing storylines that leaves viewers struggling to keep up.
Chris and Jessica discuss how the film's ambition, while commendable, ultimately results in a convoluted plot that dilutes its core mystery. They highlight the potential for a tighter, more focused thriller, lamenting that the myriad of subplots detracts from Steiner's emotional journey. The hosts also touch on the character development, noting that while Foster shines, the supporting cast, including Paula's daughter and husband, feel underexplored, leaving intriguing traits unfulfilled.
The episode further examines the film's tonal inconsistencies, with humor that fails to land and distracts from the darker elements, making it a frustrating viewing experience. Chris and Jessica agree that despite its Parisian backdrop and a strong cast, *A Private Life* struggles to deliver a cohesive and satisfying narrative.
With a score of 6 out of 10, this episode invites listeners to ponder whether *A Private Life* is worth their time. While it may appeal to die-hard Jodie Foster fans or those intrigued by French cinema, Chris and Jessica caution that the film's flaws may overshadow its merits. Tune in as they reflect on this ambitious film that, despite its interesting ideas, ultimately falls short of its potential.
https://www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/movies-first.
To access the Movies First reviews archive visit our website at www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
To access the Movies First reviews archive visit our website at www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
This episode includes AI-generated content.
WEBVTT
0
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.640
Chris: Okay, so here's something to think about. How
1
00:00:02.640 --> 00:00:04.440
often do we see a movie that tries to be a
2
00:00:04.440 --> 00:00:07.160
psychological thriller, a, uh, comedy and a
3
00:00:07.160 --> 00:00:09.960
murder mystery all at once? That's exactly
4
00:00:09.960 --> 00:00:12.640
what a private life is aiming for. And it's a
5
00:00:12.640 --> 00:00:13.360
lot to take in.
6
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:16.680
Jessica: Oh, absolutely. Just hearing the
7
00:00:16.680 --> 00:00:19.240
premise makes my head spin a little. A
8
00:00:19.240 --> 00:00:21.960
psychiatrist whose life is falling apart, a
9
00:00:21.960 --> 00:00:24.880
patient's mysterious death, a hypnotist, and
10
00:00:24.880 --> 00:00:27.780
even past lives. It's like they
11
00:00:27.780 --> 00:00:30.060
threw every dramatic trope into one movie.
12
00:00:31.420 --> 00:00:33.460
Chris: Right. And the thing is, that kind of
13
00:00:33.460 --> 00:00:35.260
ambition can either make a film really
14
00:00:35.260 --> 00:00:37.740
compelling or completely overwhelming.
15
00:00:38.140 --> 00:00:39.940
From what I've read, it seems like this one
16
00:00:39.940 --> 00:00:42.700
leans more toward the latter. There's just so
17
00:00:42.700 --> 00:00:44.900
much going on that it's hard to keep track of
18
00:00:44.900 --> 00:00:46.620
what the movie's actually trying to say.
19
00:00:47.420 --> 00:00:49.340
Jessica: That's exactly the impression I got too.
20
00:00:50.220 --> 00:00:52.970
And it's a shame, because the core idea, a
21
00:00:52.970 --> 00:00:54.970
psychiatrist being drawn into the mystery of
22
00:00:54.970 --> 00:00:57.210
her patient's death, is actually really
23
00:00:57.210 --> 00:00:59.930
intriguing. It's the kind of premise that
24
00:00:59.930 --> 00:01:01.970
could have been a tight, focused thriller.
25
00:01:02.530 --> 00:01:04.410
But then they added all these extra layers
26
00:01:04.410 --> 00:01:06.130
and it sounds like it just got messy.
27
00:01:07.010 --> 00:01:09.090
Chris: Yeah, and let's talk about those layers for a
28
00:01:09.090 --> 00:01:12.010
second. You've got Lillian Steiner, played by
29
00:01:12.010 --> 00:01:14.170
Jodie Foster, who's already dealing with her
30
00:01:14.170 --> 00:01:16.690
own emotional breakdown. Then there's the
31
00:01:16.690 --> 00:01:19.180
death of her patient Paula, which might be a
32
00:01:19.180 --> 00:01:21.940
suicide or a murder. And on top of that,
33
00:01:22.180 --> 00:01:24.580
there's this whole subplot about a hypnotist
34
00:01:24.580 --> 00:01:27.220
and a supposed past life connection
35
00:01:27.380 --> 00:01:30.260
between Steiner and Paula. It's like,
36
00:01:30.420 --> 00:01:31.380
pick a lane.
37
00:01:32.100 --> 00:01:34.459
Jessica: Exactly. And I think that's where the movie
38
00:01:34.459 --> 00:01:37.380
loses people. When you have so many different
39
00:01:37.380 --> 00:01:39.980
storylines competing for attention, it's hard
40
00:01:39.980 --> 00:01:42.580
to stay invested in any one of them. It's
41
00:01:42.580 --> 00:01:44.380
like the filmmakers were trying to do too
42
00:01:44.380 --> 00:01:46.020
much at once and the result is just
43
00:01:47.060 --> 00:01:47.540
chaos.
44
00:01:48.580 --> 00:01:50.740
Chris: And chaos is the last thing you want in a
45
00:01:50.740 --> 00:01:53.300
psychological thriller. These kinds of movies
46
00:01:53.300 --> 00:01:55.700
rely on keeping the audience intrigued and on
47
00:01:55.700 --> 00:01:58.500
edge. But if the plot is too convoluted,
48
00:01:58.580 --> 00:02:01.380
it just ends up being frustrating. I mean,
49
00:02:01.380 --> 00:02:03.940
the review even said that confusion reigns,
50
00:02:03.940 --> 00:02:05.140
which is never a good sign.
51
00:02:06.020 --> 00:02:08.940
Jessica: No, it's not. And I think part of the
52
00:02:08.940 --> 00:02:10.780
problem is that the script was just too
53
00:02:10.780 --> 00:02:13.550
ambitious. The review described it
54
00:02:13.550 --> 00:02:16.470
as engorged, which is a pretty vivid way of
55
00:02:16.470 --> 00:02:19.150
saying it was bloated. It sounds like the
56
00:02:19.150 --> 00:02:21.190
writers had a lot of ideas, but instead of
57
00:02:21.190 --> 00:02:23.110
narrowing them down, they tried to cram them
58
00:02:23.110 --> 00:02:23.550
all in.
59
00:02:24.350 --> 00:02:26.510
Chris: Yeah, and that's a rookie mistake, honestly.
60
00:02:27.230 --> 00:02:29.630
Sometimes less is more, especially in a genre
61
00:02:29.630 --> 00:02:32.230
like this. If they had just focused on the
62
00:02:32.230 --> 00:02:33.990
murder mystery and Steiner's personal
63
00:02:33.990 --> 00:02:36.230
struggles. I think the movie could have been
64
00:02:36.230 --> 00:02:39.040
a lot stronger, but instead they threw in all
65
00:02:39.040 --> 00:02:41.520
these extra elements and it just diluted the
66
00:02:41.520 --> 00:02:42.840
impact of the main story.
67
00:02:43.320 --> 00:02:45.680
Jessica: And it's not just the plot, it's also the
68
00:02:45.680 --> 00:02:48.240
characters. From what I've heard, Jodie
69
00:02:48.240 --> 00:02:50.880
Foster does a great job as Steiner, but the
70
00:02:50.880 --> 00:02:52.920
other characters feel a bit underdeveloped,
71
00:02:53.480 --> 00:02:55.720
like Paula's daughter Valerie, who comes
72
00:02:55.720 --> 00:02:58.360
across as needy, and her husband Simon,
73
00:02:58.520 --> 00:03:01.280
who's clearly hiding something. Those are
74
00:03:01.280 --> 00:03:03.120
interesting traits, but it doesn't sound like
75
00:03:03.120 --> 00:03:05.000
the movie really explores them in depth.
76
00:03:05.880 --> 00:03:08.520
Chris: That's a good point. And it's a shame because
77
00:03:08.760 --> 00:03:11.600
the cast is fantastic. I
78
00:03:11.600 --> 00:03:13.880
mean, you've got Jodie Foster, Mattia
79
00:03:13.880 --> 00:03:16.800
Malrick, Daniel Otuy. These are
80
00:03:16.800 --> 00:03:19.240
some of the best actors out there. But even
81
00:03:19.240 --> 00:03:22.120
the best actors can only do so much with
82
00:03:22.120 --> 00:03:23.800
a script that's all over the place.
83
00:03:24.760 --> 00:03:25.480
Jessica: Exactly.
84
00:03:26.520 --> 00:03:28.640
And let's not forget the tone, which is
85
00:03:28.640 --> 00:03:30.480
another area where the movie seems to
86
00:03:30.480 --> 00:03:33.210
struggle. The review mentioned that the
87
00:03:33.210 --> 00:03:35.090
humor didn't really land, which is a big
88
00:03:35.090 --> 00:03:37.810
problem. Injecting humor into a
89
00:03:37.810 --> 00:03:40.330
thriller can work if it's done well, but if
90
00:03:40.330 --> 00:03:42.490
it feels forced or out of place, it can take
91
00:03:42.490 --> 00:03:43.810
the audience out of the moment.
92
00:03:44.770 --> 00:03:46.770
Chris: Yeah, and I think that's another example of
93
00:03:46.770 --> 00:03:49.730
the movie trying to do too much. Balancing
94
00:03:49.730 --> 00:03:51.970
humor with darker elements is tricky,
95
00:03:52.450 --> 00:03:54.330
and it sounds like this film didn't quite
96
00:03:54.330 --> 00:03:57.250
pull it off. Instead of adding to the story,
97
00:03:57.760 --> 00:03:59.760
the humor just ends up being a distraction.
98
00:04:00.480 --> 00:04:02.440
Jessica: And that's really unfortunate because you can
99
00:04:02.440 --> 00:04:05.240
see the potential in a movie like this. The
100
00:04:05.240 --> 00:04:07.680
premise is intriguing, the cast is amazing,
101
00:04:07.680 --> 00:04:10.560
and the setting. Paris is always a great
102
00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:13.559
backdrop for a film, but when the execution
103
00:04:13.559 --> 00:04:15.280
doesn't live up to the promise, it's just
104
00:04:15.280 --> 00:04:16.000
disappointing.
105
00:04:16.560 --> 00:04:18.600
Chris: It really is. And I think that's why the
106
00:04:18.600 --> 00:04:21.600
review ultimately gave it a 6 out of 10. It's
107
00:04:21.600 --> 00:04:23.320
not a terrible movie, but it's not a great
108
00:04:23.320 --> 00:04:25.610
one either. It's just kind of there.
109
00:04:26.650 --> 00:04:29.130
Jessica: So let's answer the big question. Should
110
00:04:29.130 --> 00:04:31.850
people see this movie? What do you think?
111
00:04:32.890 --> 00:04:32.930
Hmm.
112
00:04:32.930 --> 00:04:35.690
Chris: Hm. That's a tough one. I think if you're a
113
00:04:35.690 --> 00:04:37.450
fan of Jodie Foster or you're really into
114
00:04:37.450 --> 00:04:39.810
French cinema, it might be worth checking
115
00:04:39.810 --> 00:04:42.330
out. But if you're looking for a tight,
116
00:04:42.570 --> 00:04:45.330
well executed thriller, this probably isn't
117
00:04:45.330 --> 00:04:45.610
it.
118
00:04:46.170 --> 00:04:49.050
Jessica: I agree it sounds like the kind of movie that
119
00:04:49.050 --> 00:04:51.620
might appeal to a very specific audience, but
120
00:04:51.620 --> 00:04:53.900
for most people, it's probably not a must
121
00:04:53.900 --> 00:04:56.860
see. There are just too many issues with
122
00:04:56.860 --> 00:04:58.820
the script and the direction to make it a
123
00:04:58.820 --> 00:05:00.220
truly satisfying experience.
124
00:05:01.340 --> 00:05:03.220
Chris: Right. And I think that's the key takeaway
125
00:05:03.220 --> 00:05:05.140
here. A, uh, private life has some
126
00:05:05.140 --> 00:05:07.820
interesting ideas and moments, but it doesn't
127
00:05:07.820 --> 00:05:10.140
quite come together as a cohesive whole.
128
00:05:10.620 --> 00:05:12.540
It's a movie that's worth a watch, if you're
129
00:05:12.540 --> 00:05:13.820
curious, but don't go in with high
130
00:05:13.820 --> 00:05:14.460
expectations.
131
00:05:15.420 --> 00:05:17.940
Jessica: Well said. And I think that's a wrap on this
132
00:05:17.940 --> 00:05:20.480
one. Should we move on to the next topic?
133
00:05:21.440 --> 00:05:23.120
Chris: Absolutely, let's do it.
0
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.640
Chris: Okay, so here's something to think about. How
1
00:00:02.640 --> 00:00:04.440
often do we see a movie that tries to be a
2
00:00:04.440 --> 00:00:07.160
psychological thriller, a, uh, comedy and a
3
00:00:07.160 --> 00:00:09.960
murder mystery all at once? That's exactly
4
00:00:09.960 --> 00:00:12.640
what a private life is aiming for. And it's a
5
00:00:12.640 --> 00:00:13.360
lot to take in.
6
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:16.680
Jessica: Oh, absolutely. Just hearing the
7
00:00:16.680 --> 00:00:19.240
premise makes my head spin a little. A
8
00:00:19.240 --> 00:00:21.960
psychiatrist whose life is falling apart, a
9
00:00:21.960 --> 00:00:24.880
patient's mysterious death, a hypnotist, and
10
00:00:24.880 --> 00:00:27.780
even past lives. It's like they
11
00:00:27.780 --> 00:00:30.060
threw every dramatic trope into one movie.
12
00:00:31.420 --> 00:00:33.460
Chris: Right. And the thing is, that kind of
13
00:00:33.460 --> 00:00:35.260
ambition can either make a film really
14
00:00:35.260 --> 00:00:37.740
compelling or completely overwhelming.
15
00:00:38.140 --> 00:00:39.940
From what I've read, it seems like this one
16
00:00:39.940 --> 00:00:42.700
leans more toward the latter. There's just so
17
00:00:42.700 --> 00:00:44.900
much going on that it's hard to keep track of
18
00:00:44.900 --> 00:00:46.620
what the movie's actually trying to say.
19
00:00:47.420 --> 00:00:49.340
Jessica: That's exactly the impression I got too.
20
00:00:50.220 --> 00:00:52.970
And it's a shame, because the core idea, a
21
00:00:52.970 --> 00:00:54.970
psychiatrist being drawn into the mystery of
22
00:00:54.970 --> 00:00:57.210
her patient's death, is actually really
23
00:00:57.210 --> 00:00:59.930
intriguing. It's the kind of premise that
24
00:00:59.930 --> 00:01:01.970
could have been a tight, focused thriller.
25
00:01:02.530 --> 00:01:04.410
But then they added all these extra layers
26
00:01:04.410 --> 00:01:06.130
and it sounds like it just got messy.
27
00:01:07.010 --> 00:01:09.090
Chris: Yeah, and let's talk about those layers for a
28
00:01:09.090 --> 00:01:12.010
second. You've got Lillian Steiner, played by
29
00:01:12.010 --> 00:01:14.170
Jodie Foster, who's already dealing with her
30
00:01:14.170 --> 00:01:16.690
own emotional breakdown. Then there's the
31
00:01:16.690 --> 00:01:19.180
death of her patient Paula, which might be a
32
00:01:19.180 --> 00:01:21.940
suicide or a murder. And on top of that,
33
00:01:22.180 --> 00:01:24.580
there's this whole subplot about a hypnotist
34
00:01:24.580 --> 00:01:27.220
and a supposed past life connection
35
00:01:27.380 --> 00:01:30.260
between Steiner and Paula. It's like,
36
00:01:30.420 --> 00:01:31.380
pick a lane.
37
00:01:32.100 --> 00:01:34.459
Jessica: Exactly. And I think that's where the movie
38
00:01:34.459 --> 00:01:37.380
loses people. When you have so many different
39
00:01:37.380 --> 00:01:39.980
storylines competing for attention, it's hard
40
00:01:39.980 --> 00:01:42.580
to stay invested in any one of them. It's
41
00:01:42.580 --> 00:01:44.380
like the filmmakers were trying to do too
42
00:01:44.380 --> 00:01:46.020
much at once and the result is just
43
00:01:47.060 --> 00:01:47.540
chaos.
44
00:01:48.580 --> 00:01:50.740
Chris: And chaos is the last thing you want in a
45
00:01:50.740 --> 00:01:53.300
psychological thriller. These kinds of movies
46
00:01:53.300 --> 00:01:55.700
rely on keeping the audience intrigued and on
47
00:01:55.700 --> 00:01:58.500
edge. But if the plot is too convoluted,
48
00:01:58.580 --> 00:02:01.380
it just ends up being frustrating. I mean,
49
00:02:01.380 --> 00:02:03.940
the review even said that confusion reigns,
50
00:02:03.940 --> 00:02:05.140
which is never a good sign.
51
00:02:06.020 --> 00:02:08.940
Jessica: No, it's not. And I think part of the
52
00:02:08.940 --> 00:02:10.780
problem is that the script was just too
53
00:02:10.780 --> 00:02:13.550
ambitious. The review described it
54
00:02:13.550 --> 00:02:16.470
as engorged, which is a pretty vivid way of
55
00:02:16.470 --> 00:02:19.150
saying it was bloated. It sounds like the
56
00:02:19.150 --> 00:02:21.190
writers had a lot of ideas, but instead of
57
00:02:21.190 --> 00:02:23.110
narrowing them down, they tried to cram them
58
00:02:23.110 --> 00:02:23.550
all in.
59
00:02:24.350 --> 00:02:26.510
Chris: Yeah, and that's a rookie mistake, honestly.
60
00:02:27.230 --> 00:02:29.630
Sometimes less is more, especially in a genre
61
00:02:29.630 --> 00:02:32.230
like this. If they had just focused on the
62
00:02:32.230 --> 00:02:33.990
murder mystery and Steiner's personal
63
00:02:33.990 --> 00:02:36.230
struggles. I think the movie could have been
64
00:02:36.230 --> 00:02:39.040
a lot stronger, but instead they threw in all
65
00:02:39.040 --> 00:02:41.520
these extra elements and it just diluted the
66
00:02:41.520 --> 00:02:42.840
impact of the main story.
67
00:02:43.320 --> 00:02:45.680
Jessica: And it's not just the plot, it's also the
68
00:02:45.680 --> 00:02:48.240
characters. From what I've heard, Jodie
69
00:02:48.240 --> 00:02:50.880
Foster does a great job as Steiner, but the
70
00:02:50.880 --> 00:02:52.920
other characters feel a bit underdeveloped,
71
00:02:53.480 --> 00:02:55.720
like Paula's daughter Valerie, who comes
72
00:02:55.720 --> 00:02:58.360
across as needy, and her husband Simon,
73
00:02:58.520 --> 00:03:01.280
who's clearly hiding something. Those are
74
00:03:01.280 --> 00:03:03.120
interesting traits, but it doesn't sound like
75
00:03:03.120 --> 00:03:05.000
the movie really explores them in depth.
76
00:03:05.880 --> 00:03:08.520
Chris: That's a good point. And it's a shame because
77
00:03:08.760 --> 00:03:11.600
the cast is fantastic. I
78
00:03:11.600 --> 00:03:13.880
mean, you've got Jodie Foster, Mattia
79
00:03:13.880 --> 00:03:16.800
Malrick, Daniel Otuy. These are
80
00:03:16.800 --> 00:03:19.240
some of the best actors out there. But even
81
00:03:19.240 --> 00:03:22.120
the best actors can only do so much with
82
00:03:22.120 --> 00:03:23.800
a script that's all over the place.
83
00:03:24.760 --> 00:03:25.480
Jessica: Exactly.
84
00:03:26.520 --> 00:03:28.640
And let's not forget the tone, which is
85
00:03:28.640 --> 00:03:30.480
another area where the movie seems to
86
00:03:30.480 --> 00:03:33.210
struggle. The review mentioned that the
87
00:03:33.210 --> 00:03:35.090
humor didn't really land, which is a big
88
00:03:35.090 --> 00:03:37.810
problem. Injecting humor into a
89
00:03:37.810 --> 00:03:40.330
thriller can work if it's done well, but if
90
00:03:40.330 --> 00:03:42.490
it feels forced or out of place, it can take
91
00:03:42.490 --> 00:03:43.810
the audience out of the moment.
92
00:03:44.770 --> 00:03:46.770
Chris: Yeah, and I think that's another example of
93
00:03:46.770 --> 00:03:49.730
the movie trying to do too much. Balancing
94
00:03:49.730 --> 00:03:51.970
humor with darker elements is tricky,
95
00:03:52.450 --> 00:03:54.330
and it sounds like this film didn't quite
96
00:03:54.330 --> 00:03:57.250
pull it off. Instead of adding to the story,
97
00:03:57.760 --> 00:03:59.760
the humor just ends up being a distraction.
98
00:04:00.480 --> 00:04:02.440
Jessica: And that's really unfortunate because you can
99
00:04:02.440 --> 00:04:05.240
see the potential in a movie like this. The
100
00:04:05.240 --> 00:04:07.680
premise is intriguing, the cast is amazing,
101
00:04:07.680 --> 00:04:10.560
and the setting. Paris is always a great
102
00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:13.559
backdrop for a film, but when the execution
103
00:04:13.559 --> 00:04:15.280
doesn't live up to the promise, it's just
104
00:04:15.280 --> 00:04:16.000
disappointing.
105
00:04:16.560 --> 00:04:18.600
Chris: It really is. And I think that's why the
106
00:04:18.600 --> 00:04:21.600
review ultimately gave it a 6 out of 10. It's
107
00:04:21.600 --> 00:04:23.320
not a terrible movie, but it's not a great
108
00:04:23.320 --> 00:04:25.610
one either. It's just kind of there.
109
00:04:26.650 --> 00:04:29.130
Jessica: So let's answer the big question. Should
110
00:04:29.130 --> 00:04:31.850
people see this movie? What do you think?
111
00:04:32.890 --> 00:04:32.930
Hmm.
112
00:04:32.930 --> 00:04:35.690
Chris: Hm. That's a tough one. I think if you're a
113
00:04:35.690 --> 00:04:37.450
fan of Jodie Foster or you're really into
114
00:04:37.450 --> 00:04:39.810
French cinema, it might be worth checking
115
00:04:39.810 --> 00:04:42.330
out. But if you're looking for a tight,
116
00:04:42.570 --> 00:04:45.330
well executed thriller, this probably isn't
117
00:04:45.330 --> 00:04:45.610
it.
118
00:04:46.170 --> 00:04:49.050
Jessica: I agree it sounds like the kind of movie that
119
00:04:49.050 --> 00:04:51.620
might appeal to a very specific audience, but
120
00:04:51.620 --> 00:04:53.900
for most people, it's probably not a must
121
00:04:53.900 --> 00:04:56.860
see. There are just too many issues with
122
00:04:56.860 --> 00:04:58.820
the script and the direction to make it a
123
00:04:58.820 --> 00:05:00.220
truly satisfying experience.
124
00:05:01.340 --> 00:05:03.220
Chris: Right. And I think that's the key takeaway
125
00:05:03.220 --> 00:05:05.140
here. A, uh, private life has some
126
00:05:05.140 --> 00:05:07.820
interesting ideas and moments, but it doesn't
127
00:05:07.820 --> 00:05:10.140
quite come together as a cohesive whole.
128
00:05:10.620 --> 00:05:12.540
It's a movie that's worth a watch, if you're
129
00:05:12.540 --> 00:05:13.820
curious, but don't go in with high
130
00:05:13.820 --> 00:05:14.460
expectations.
131
00:05:15.420 --> 00:05:17.940
Jessica: Well said. And I think that's a wrap on this
132
00:05:17.940 --> 00:05:20.480
one. Should we move on to the next topic?
133
00:05:21.440 --> 00:05:23.120
Chris: Absolutely, let's do it.
