A genealogist and a cop: a great team for uncovering the origins of the crime. On a murder case, they team up to find out who committed the murder? And why?A genealogist and a cop: a great team for uncovering the origins of the crime. On a murder case, they team up to find out who committed the murder? And why?A genealogist and a cop: a great team for uncovering the origins of the crime. On a murder case, they team up to find out who committed the murder? And why?
Browse episodes
Photos
Featured reviews
Season 1 was fun and interesting. Season 2 character replacement made no sense. Writers, director, producer...someone decided it was a good idea to change the actress with someone not in the least bit similar to the prior actress. The development and chemistry failed miserably. Too bad.
Like the Season 1 better. The chemistry between the genealogist and the police is funny and interesting
This series started out great. The characters were adults, and the plots were a bit Byzantine, but weren't impossible if you paid attention. The two main characters were a beautiful, intelligent and independent-minded genealogist and a 30-something detective who was interesting--meticulously dressed and groomed and a bit of a fuss-pot who played the cello for fun. One could guess that both characters had secrets that weren't being revealed by the first season's 6 shows--hence my interest in seeing Season Two.
So, then, along came the second season. The interesting, beautiful genealogist was replaced by a pushy, somewhat abrasive woman who doesn't seem to know anything about genealogy (but shares the same name as the original character) and reminds me of the standard somewhat dumb assistant in American cop shows. I have no idea what her part in this confused mess is supposed to be. And the detective suddenly grew a stubble, mussed up his hair, and started wearing jeans to work--in short, he became the standard American adult-male-hiding-as-a-teenager TV star. He's about as good a match for the new co-star as Sherlock Holmes would be for a waitress in a diner (but they'll probably hook up, given the logic of season two). Add to that a pouty 9-year-old who's far smarter than her years (or any of the adults on the show) and you wonder what the series' producers could be thinking.
Watch the first 6 episodes and pretend this show doesn't have a second season.
So, then, along came the second season. The interesting, beautiful genealogist was replaced by a pushy, somewhat abrasive woman who doesn't seem to know anything about genealogy (but shares the same name as the original character) and reminds me of the standard somewhat dumb assistant in American cop shows. I have no idea what her part in this confused mess is supposed to be. And the detective suddenly grew a stubble, mussed up his hair, and started wearing jeans to work--in short, he became the standard American adult-male-hiding-as-a-teenager TV star. He's about as good a match for the new co-star as Sherlock Holmes would be for a waitress in a diner (but they'll probably hook up, given the logic of season two). Add to that a pouty 9-year-old who's far smarter than her years (or any of the adults on the show) and you wonder what the series' producers could be thinking.
Watch the first 6 episodes and pretend this show doesn't have a second season.
Season 1 had interesting stories and great chemistry between the actors. Season 2 thew switched out the actress for Margot and gave Arthur a hip make over. It's like two different shows. Season one gets a 9 Season 2 a 3.
Changing the actress who portrays Margot was the worst decision possible. You've completely reuined a wonderful show.
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content