annlaw78

Agree it's not riveting, and this is not a workplace-based show. I just wouldn't expect her to be able to swan around with M & C as much as she does, given she's the breadwinner in a high cost-of-living town. I find that to be a bit unrealistic. But, that's the disbelief I must suspend, as that's the story the show is telling!

I think that's just part of their dynamic -- she is gratified to a degree by his dominance. The degree is the problem. She also has a nanny, so she's not necessarily spending a lot more time with them.

I just don't buy that she's part of the Madeline-Celeste crowd. I also don't get how she supports herself -- all we ever see her do is jog and hang out with Madeline. I agree that her character could be a lot more compelling than it is -- as it is, I find her (repetitive) scenes of flashbacks/fantasy shootings and general ineffectualness rather blah.

Especially since the bite looked like it happened on bare skin, not through kiddie designer-wear. Makes me wonder if there isn't some game going on with another girl. Girls playing out their mothers' competitiveness, etc. v. an abusive boy. I think either scenario is thematically in keeping with the show.

I miss boot cut yoga pants. Sigh. I think this show's doing a fantastic job of showing the complexity of an abusive relationship, and depicting the many reasons why a smart, professional woman "with options" like Celeste would stay (aging/self-worth, truly thinking he's a great father/keeping family intact, being the "it" couple in town, history/loyalty, sex/being desired, etc.). She's doing some top-shelf rationalizing. It's more nuanced than the usual drunk-dude-comes-busting-through-the-mobile-home-door concept we usually see.

I agree. Same with leaving the bag of tea in a glass of iced tea (and, in general, thinking that's how you make iced tea, and serving iced tea (assuming it's caffeinated) to a child at night). I don't see a mother doing that.

A lawyer can easily explain that just because Burke's affect is "different," does not mean he's a killer. His mother's long battle with cancer and her death, losing two sisters unexpectedly, the public scrutiny, etc. -- he had a lot of unusual traumas during his formative years.

The idea that "innocent" people don't need an attorney is a farce. There are innumerable examples to prove that, and many wrongful convictions have been investigated by the very team behind this documentary. I think there's a certain classism at play (not ascribing that to the OP), that when a person with the means to get an attorney does, it's b/c of guilt; but when a person without means does not have representation, it's a travesty of justice.

If Patsy wanted a wine cellar, she would have had a wine cellar. They had plenty of money, and has recently completed a remodel of the home. I've always wondered how extensively they investigated a possible connection between someone familiar with the home/grounds/family from the remodeling project.

I tend to share this feeling. After all the hype, the show didn't really offer anything new except this same old sensationalized story, that "the creepy older brother" did it. If that's the result, and if there wasn't anything really new to offer, then why this show? That's hardly a new insight.

Or maybe a parent trying to end Christmas on a nice note, rather than a sour one? There are a lot of things that can be viewed as sinister or benign about this case. I suppose that's why it has remained such a topic of interest for 20 years. i just try to keep in mind how messy my house, and life, may look if rent open to public and law enforcement scrutiny without my expecting it.

I'm disappointed with the hype about how this was a complete, thorough investigation using new technology and techniques. In point of fact, you have experts reviewing reports of others, with no review of the actual evidence. You don't have any of the real physical evidence tested. I appreciate that Spitz and Lee are forensic Titans, but their investigation seems very limited. The recreation of the Ramsey home was nifty, but the most important bit -- the window configuration with the chase -- looks different from Couric's interview with Schmit. What, exactly, new was brought to bear?

I get that idea, but in this case, there's no way to separate being the grieving family and also the prime suspects (as acknowledged by the first FBI guy on scene). I think the Ramseys were subject to a lot of "well, if this were my daughter, I'd be doing X" speculation that wasn't fair, or legally advisable. As we've seen, arrests, prosecutions, and convictions can be wrongful. Hence, the cottage industry of Serial/Paradise Lost-esque programming.

I have no real opinion on what happened, but it strikes me as odd that the first thing used to support a theory of Ramsey culpability is that they wanted communications with police to go through their lawyer. And a lot of those critical voices (podcasters, commentators) are those who railed against the improper interrogation techniques in other cases like Avery/Dassey, Syed/Wilds, WM3, and how those persons would have been better served by asking for a lawyer. It just seems inconsistent. The Ramsey lawyer had to have known that the family would have been primary suspects, given statistics and confirmation bias. I'm also a little skeptical of claims by law enforcement when suspects/defendants "aren't cooperating," as we've learned from other high profile wrongful prosecutions that can be inaccurate -- it's certainly very subjective.

Here's an idea, Claire: Why don't you start listening to your husband (you know, that guy whose hand is still bandaged from his last run-in with Randall), rather than running off half-cocked into situations with consequences you don't understand and making new enemies. Geez!

I took it that Hannibal survived and finally got what he wanted.A bit disturbed that to catch one serial killer, the FBI is willing to lose half a dozen cops. Seems like a bit of a false economy there. Loved shot Hannibal's pissy looks while waiting on Will to intercede with the Dragon. Really didn't care much about Reba. The oddly stylized and cold way they had her speak made her seem just some stock Hannibal-verse character.

This season is demonstrating what a giant charisma void Will Graham is. Him exchanging cryptic profundities in his quivering cry-talking voice with Hannibal? Fantastic. With Chiyo (a character too busy being written as "ENIGMATIC" to have any discernible personality or audience appeal)? Yawn. The Hannibal, Jack, and Mason scenes all were kinetic and engaging, and the cuts to the Orient Express detracted from the episode.

Noooo: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/hannibal-cancelled-nbc-season-4-1201525404/ Hannibal cancelled.

So Hannibal killed and ate Mischa because she somehow transgressed against/betrayed him? Is that where we're going?

I am one of rare, it seems, people who like Norton's Graham. He added a lightness to the character, that balanced out the darkness of his job. His empathy also was very evident in his dealings with other, live people, and not just in hallucinating crime scenes. He was really touching, for example, with Reba after her ordeal, knowing exactly what she needed to hear and saying it. He also seemed to be more grounded in law enforcement and forensics, and less this roving-Cassandra-imaginer-for-hire that the show's Graham is. for someone whose salient characteristic is his empathy, Show Graham is almost rivaling Hannibal in the weirdness and oddness stakes. Liking dogs and fishing does not a personality make.

Was it just my TV, or were the Will scenes impossibly dark? I could barely see anything but very shadowed faces. I thought Fuller said he was going to dispense with the Mischa-eating origin story for Hannibal, and just go with "I happened." The Will scenes really dragged, and every time they cut from Hannibal and Bedelia was a disappointment. The Will character -- mumbly, mirthless, flat -- is rather a difficult protagonist to anchor a series. He's getting to be one-note. Because of the lighting issue, I couldn't tell what was happening with his scenes -- did he kill someone? The repeated snail imagery -- I kepnthinking the show really shouldn't beg the comparison. Long spans of nothing but atmospheric chimes and ominous tones do not a plot make.

Wordy word word.

Look, I hate Cersei as much as the next person, and am eager for her comeuppance. But seeing her literally slutshamed through the streets of KL for essentially (and officially) having an affair with Lancel, was not what I had in mind.

I have to say, when comparing Antipasto and this ep, I really didn't miss Will's mopey, quivering cry-talking. I dig the Hannibal-let-loose-on-the-Continent story. Will's dreams, hallucinations, and imaginings are getting a little tiresome now, especially since he's no longer supposed to be encephalitic.

Because Jamie's face being frozen in dread was quite sufficient to let the audience know what was going to happen, without actually showing. And not everyone watches the front matter (previouslies then credits) of the show.