Add a Review

  • WAT is the show I look forward to watching most every week (comes in a close 2nd after The Closer). I don't know why so many people think the show has gone downhill. It still holds my interest for that hour. My only criticism (and it's not about Rosalyn Sanchez) is that they have one of the most talented actresses alive today, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, and they hardly use her! She deserves much more character development and depth to her role. It's the same story with S. Epatha Merkerson on Law & Order. Another underused great talent. However, perhaps after being recognized for Lackawanna Blues, NBC will wake up. Let's see more Marianne in the future. At least let her express an emotion every now and then. Even Tony LaPaglia is allowed to do that.
  • I am sorry that "Without A Trace" went off the air after five years, though I agree with other reviewers that it had probably exhausted its possibilities. The show had many things going for it: a first-rate cast, a set of often surprising plot twists, and an ability to look at some of the darkest parts of New York city life. Anthony LaPaglia, as the head of the FBI missing- persons unit, gave a set of performances that were truly gripping: his character was always tough, devoted, and often very reserved, but there was always an enormous amount of passion locked within him which would come out at the most desperate moments. The rest of the cast were uniformly good, and I agree with many other observers that Marianne Jean-Baptiste was a superb actress and a perfect colleague for LaPaglia's plain-spoken FBI man.

    It is true, though, that as the years went by, the script writers appear to have run out of ideas about missing/abducted/brutalized persons and turned more and more to examining the personal lives of the FBI agents. We had love affairs between LaPaglia and Montgomery, Close and Montgomery, and Murciano and Sanchez, not to mention the collapse of LaPaglia's character's marriage, and the show did become more and more of a soap opera. It was probably at that point that the show started to lose the interest of its viewers.

    But the single most important relationship in the show -- not a romantic relationship so much as a deeply personal relationship between two characters who really respected each other, even when they fought with each other -- was the relationship between LaPaglia's character and Jean-Baptiste's character. They were the stars of the show, and the way they agreed but often disagreed about their jobs and their lives made the show the wonderful, poignant success that it was for so many years.
  • A little while ago,I'd written a user comment that was faintly praising and perhaps a little more than cruel in dismissing this show as a sort of pedestrian,superficial attempt at sincere drama that is acted well-enough and scripted competently enough to be interesting. After watching more episodes(mostly in re-runs) and getting roundly unsupported by those who bothered an opinion of my review,I decided to do a rewrite.

    While I still stick by my assertion that this show isn't quite as innovative or searing as it aspires to be,it's still quite compelling a drama. While the acting varies,from superb and sublime(mostly Anthony LaPaglia as the chief,but Marianne Jean-BAptiste and Poppy Montgomery are good as fellow agents),to completely flat(mostly Roslyn Sanchez,who IS easy on the eyes but not much more),the stories DO draw the viewer in,and the earnest and deliberate means of spelling out the Bureau's investigating a missing case. Good storytelling that is not (ordinarily) as graphic or de-humanizing as a CSI episode,that still handles the subject manner soberly(if sometimes short-sighted),this show may not be my favorite on the telly,but I will watch it if it's on more often than not. That,to me,seems like a more accurate assessment.
  • I find this show engaging enough to watch fairly regularly but have to disagree with all the glowing reviews that have been posted. The plot lines are often simplistic and sensationalist and the long music-driven "emotional" scenes are pandering and boring. The characters are one dimensional and any "development" seems forced. I feel like Lenny on Law & Order is my good buddy even though that show hardly has any character development, whereas the WAT characters seem more like bullet points--"the wise, good hearted leader with family problems", "the tough blonde going through an emotional crisis", etc. The show is okay but it's really a slick presentation of something that could use a few more IQ points.
  • This show used to be great. Maybe not the pinnacle of television, but very, very good.

    It had a nice cast, good writing (although it erred on not doing enough with the characters) and good directing (after a shaky first season).

    But then it all collapsed. The creator of the show left and in came people who like their actresses incompetent and their scripts full of plot holes.

    The hiring of Roselyn Sanchez is when this show jumped the shark.

    Roselyn Sanchez is possibly the worst actress working as a lead in film and television today... and that's saying a lot! Her complete like of emoting, combined with her lack of diction and her unnaturally immobile face make every scene she's in a painful experience.

    In addition, her bad acting exposes how bad the writing has become.

    No wonder audiences have been deserting with once huge hit.
  • It's amazing how Without a Trace went from one of the best shows on TV to must-miss TV in about three episodes.

    First the writing went down the drain with the characters acting out implausible stories between them that sounded like they had been lifted out of a really bad daytime soap.

    Then the regular actors got that bemused look on their faces, as if they didn't know what their character was supposed to be any more.

    Finally, to "spice things up" I'm sure, the producers went and hired one of the worst actresses in Hollywood: Roselyn Sanchez, who can't even enunciate and has a face so plastic she's a walking indictment of the plastic surgery profession.

    Very sad. Hopefully they'll right the boat, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Update: It turns out the didn't right the boat. Roselyn Sanchez is still killing every scene she's in and the show is but a pale shadow of what it used to be.

    Too bad as it was a very promising show.
  • The show is still very good though my friends and I, who watch it together, agree with another viewer that Ms Sanchez ruined an excellent #10 show. There were already two women and a Spanish-American on board, so the show was politically correct and the ensemble fantastic. I never wished anybody (besides Hitler and heads of the soviet Union) to die, but I heartily wish that Ms Sanches' character would be shot for good and the show would return to its previous magnificence. Well, then I could purchase the following seasons' disks as well as those I had without Ms Sanchez' not enjoyable and unwanted presence. Could there be a possible hope in that direction? What a great thing it would be.
  • Antagonisten20 June 2006
    I have watched quite many episodes of this show. Simply because i have very few TV-channels with good reception during weekends in the cabin, and this show is conveniently shown Saturday evening.

    There are two kinds of TV-shows. First the ones that get better the more you watch them, like most of the shows from HBO for instance. The characters get more elaborate, the story deeper and the show moves forward. Then there is the second kind of show that becomes worse the more you watch. Repetitive scripts, shallow characters, illogical story line. Unfortunately this show belongs to the latter category.

    I don't really know whether that's so unexpected though. This show is about cops trying to find missing people and there are not that many ways for someone to go missing. Usually it's just variants on the same thing. Violent crime, teenagers run away from home, abductions, accidents. After a dozen episodes it more or less feels like i have seen it all.

    And what are the positive points? Since i have given this show a five-star grade there should be a few of those as well. And there are. This show has a few qualities that i appreciate. Among them are the technical quality, the decent acting and the nice pace. Especially pace is something that's very necessary for a show to concentrate on. If i'm going to watch many episodes of a TV-show i need it to be well-paced. Not too fast-paced and not too slow. Both ruin the experience. This show is just about right.

    With a bit more creative thinking in the script-department, a bit more character-development and perhaps also a bit less moralizing this could be good entertainment. Right now it barely reaches the "ok"-mark.
  • What a waste! It took the WAT producers a half season until they hit their stride (the pilot was oh-hum but the show showed potential for growth, in particular with its great cast.) The second season was excellent, with better photography and more interesting writing and decent "persoanl arcs" for each character.

    I was looking forward to the third season, but then it all collapsed in a second.

    The writing went downhill faster than an olympic racer. And of course, to make matter worse, they had to tinker with the cast and add Roselyn Sanchez to make sure that we got how terrible the writing is.

    Oh, well. It had one good season...
  • mel198613 October 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    I agree i think they should kill Roselyn Sanchez off and i also think that martin and Sam should get back together but before that i think she should get back with jack and Martin and Viv should have an affair and i think they should let Enrique pick his own love interest on without a trace and they should bring jacks wife back in.They should a Christmas where they all go away for the holidays together and show people that Christmas is about giving not receiving and being with the people they love and their friend and what it's like when people can't be with the people they love.Sam should choose who she wants and who ever she decides to be with they should get married with a twist.
  • What is going on at WAT? After tonight's brilliantly directed and lit but awful episode (did any of the producers bother to read the script?) the previews for next week's show introduce Roselyn Sanchez as, presumably, a new regular character.

    If that's the case, here's a show that will jump the shark faster than any other hit.

    Roselyn Sanchez can't act. Even seeing her for twenty seconds in the previews, it's obvious she will suck the life out of every scene she will be in.

    As for this week's episode (the mad bomber kid show), what were they thinking? There was not a single moment of believable characterization in the entire hour.

    All the children were portrayed as abandoned by their parents and prone to violent criminality. All the parents were absent, clueless and shocked, and the regulars wore a constipated expression throughout (clearly THEY were forced to read the script) and the interactions between them was as forced as it was nonsensical.

    Easily the most disappointing episodes in the history of the show. I hope they correct this quickly because another one of those and I'll find something better to do with my Thursdays at 10.

    UPDATE: Sadly, the producers never corrected the show, ending up with an annoying snoozer that failed to live up to its promise.
  • After reading a half-dozen of the reviews convinced that a lot of folks who didn't like it were expecting a typical cop show. It isn't. May have been an experiment on Bruckheimer's part - turning cop show conventions on their head.

    First there's the shows low-key tone: no screaming sirens, no melodramatic hooks, no heart-pounding chases or rescues. Chases and especially rescues do exist but, like all of the other expositional elements, they're portrayed in measured, deliberate and muted tones. Just like the "teams" response to each week's puzzle. All very quiet with just a hint of intensity and a clear demonstration that they care about their victims.

    All elements that, except for the tone, Without a Trace shares with most cop shows. Just reversed.

    Now here's the really radical departure - the show's focus is centered on what are usually the secondary characters: the victims and the lives surrounding them. In fact, most of the "team's" interactions are with the secondary characters.

    Think about shows, very good shows, like Bones or Castle or Burn Notice or any one of dozens of cop shows: all centered on the "team" and it interactions. Victims, perps and puzzles exist mainly to highlight those interactions.

    This is not a criticism. I love the shows mentioned.

    My point is simply that Without a Trace reverses those conventions and does it very successfully. One one hand, enough time is spent on the team to humanize it; on the other, just enough emphasis on the victims and their stories to elevate them to the the primary focus.

    Takes some getting used to but well worth the effort. Surprising, those few scenes dedicated to the "team", either as individuals or a whole, wind up describing a very rich set of personalities, though you might have to watch a lot of episodes to realize it.

    Like all cop shows there there are problems with plot integrity and, with Without a Trace, the very premise: the FBI getting involved before the local cops and their 48-hour window. And like all cop shows, the inconsistencies and questionable plot lines are simply elements meant to invoke the suspension of disbelief. Nothing more.

    If this was an experiment on Bruckheimer's part, seven seasons speak volumes to its success.
  • Roselyn Sanchez has completely destroyed the interest I used to have in this show.

    Her complete lack of acting ability just annihilates every scene that she is in. She mumbles through every line and is barely intelligible (and I am being nice).

    Her face is so completely devoid of emotion, one has to wonder why anyone would ever want to have such a negative presence on a formerly hit show.

    It must be hell for the other actors to have to share the screen with someone who gives them absolutely nothing to play against.

    Come on CBS, do the right thing and force the bad producers who hired her to fire her. Maybe killing her character would be good. It could be sold as a "very special episode".

    I know I'd watch it.
  • The woman is a menace to acting.

    I mean, she has been awful in every single episode she was in. And just in case you weren't sure how bad she was, she's been awful in every movie she's been in.

    She's not an actress. She's a model who is completely lacking in acting talent or knowledge.

    And don't get me started about the way she mumbles. Why hasn't anyone gotten her to an elocution class? Isn't that the least you should be able to do if you're trying to be an actor? This show used to be really good and then suddenly, the quality went out the window. It corresponded with the arrival of Ms. Sanchez and her bad acting.
  • I've come to hate this show--the agents are so over the top and the events are so badly done that to say it stretches reality is greatly beyond an understatement. Malone is off-kilter so much he should be in jail for all the stuff he pulls. The personal drama between the characters detract too much from what's going on. The agents consistently abuse, threaten, and brow-beat suspects, witnesses, and victims that that whole unit should be looking for new jobs...or suspension at the least. I've stopped watching this originals, no reruns, no more TiVo season pass.

    I started watching because of Eric Close--I thought this show would give him a chance to truly develop into a top-tier actor, but that just has not happened. LaPaglia is good as Jack Malone, but the overdone maverick behavior of Malone so distracts from the show--greatly so. However, the one actor that truly shines in the show is Marianne Jean-Baptiste as agent Vivian Johnson. She is the only one on the show that acts like an FBI agent with the portrayal of the character's personal side being the most believable.

    And to the CBS directors and writers, you guys need an FBI technical adviser for more than just a few shows...or fire Mark Llewellyn for doing such a poor job.
  • First of all, to all the people who wanted Roselyn Sanchez out of the picture, your wish has been fulfilled. It seems that WAT will not return for an eighth season.

    Personally, I thought she wasn't that bad. She even won an award for her acting in this series. Has anyone ever thought that the way she acted was maybe the way her character was supposed to be? Lifeless, cold, emotionless, like a real FBI agent. I had no problem with her accent either. If anyone was mumbling on that show it was rather Anthony Lapaglia! Anyway, the first season was a little shaky with actors finding their characters. The second season was great. The third season had too much emphasis on character personal development and unrealistic involvement with each other. Almost to the point of having the impression of watching a bad soap opera.

    And it went downhill from there, until the last seasons where the writing got a bit better, but not as good as the early shows.

    Well all this is academic, since we've seen the very last of Jack, Sam, Vivian, Danny, and Martin. Oh, and I almost forgot, Elena.

    In my humble opinion, Marianne Jean-Baptiste was the best actress throughout her 159 episodes, even though we didn't see her character's private side as much as the others.

    My two cents on it.
  • This series started off with promise but has quickly faded to the back of the pack. The show is light on character development, which can be alright (see "Law & Order" with Benjamin Bratt and Jerry Orbach). However, the plots are hackneyed and played out in overly dramatic fashion, which doesn't work for a show that should be grittier and uglier. Also, I don't mind figuring out the mystery a few minutes early, it happens from time to time with all shows, but figuring it out 15 minutes early and then having to suffer through melodramatic moments and elaborate epiphanies accompanied by music that sounds as though it came from a "Soundtracks 101a" class is just gut-wrenching. My recommendation? Skip this copycat and stick with the winners: L&O (original), CSI (original), and The Shield. If you want a show closer to Without a Trace but with a bit more body, try "Criminal Minds."
  • Whereas CSI is about a crime scene unit team, Without A Trace involves missing persons and the FBI. Otherwise, it's nothing more than another CSI spin off. = "CSI: Without A Trace". People tend to disagree but they fail to see CSI: Without A Trace for what it is, Bruckheimer TV.

    CSI deals with a crime scene to solve a murder or two while CSI: Without A Trace backtracks a person or person(s) last steps at a "crime scene" of sorts to find this person. Both shows genres deal with lengthy interviews with suspects or witnesses and the hunt for forensic evidence. Flashback scenes are used in both series and are filmed under similar sequences. At the end of an episode, a small snippet involves the personal lives of the crime-solving team.
  • For three seasons this show about missing persons was a favorite of mine. Then the show itself went missing (it changed nights) and I never saw it again.

    Well, okay, I did, once in a while. But I'd lose interest before the end and so was never moved to make a note of the new time slot. The show declined, like most shows, a little at a time; it never went bad, but the qualities that had originally drawn me to it slipped away. Really, they began doing so after the first season.

    Of course the show was mistitled: the missing always left traces, without which there could have been no stories. The reasons for the disappearances varied (and varied more the longer the show continued), but the best and most characteristic stories were variations on the old song "The Raggle Taggle Gypsies," about a wife who has a seemingly perfect life--rich husband, house and lands, featherbed--and runs away from it. In the song the reason is never disclosed; but on the show, in its best period, a series of interviews would build up a picture of the missing person, gradually revealing what was hidden in his life and in his psyche, so that the story became less a police procedural than a character study. The contrast between the victim's outward life and his inner one, which had become intolerable, gave the format a special resonance: the character had become separated from everything around him before he ever took off; he had left already.

    At first glance the regular cast seemed absurdly over-qualified for this type of show, but their ability was essential to its coming off at all. It wasn't just that they were skillful actors but that they were all able to play in the same key, set by the lead, Anthony La Paglia. They behaved like people who had themselves lost someone (some of their losses were dramatized in later episodes) and thereby set the show's tone: an air of bereavement, of having lost something irretrievable, even after the missing persons were found. As a result many of the early episodes were truly affecting, without being forced. However, as often happens on TV, sincerity was the show's first casualty, and after the first season it seldom achieved the same level of poignancy.

    Of course not all the episodes conformed to the same pattern. A handful dealt with serial killers, and although most of these were up to standard they weren't really in the show's line.

    And it had its share of unlikelihoods from the start. Its style was similar to that of the British spy show Spooks: intense, low-key acting and gritty locales overlaid with flash camera-work. These combined to create an impression of devoted realism which masked the impossibility of the scenes: not one of the conversations could ever have happened as written, especially among people in the professions shown.

    The biggest improbability was a prior affair between Jack, the boss, and Samantha, one of his agents, which continued to inform their dealings and the atmosphere of the office in general. The show normally observed such reticence about its regulars' personal lives that a viewer who left to get a Coke was apt to miss the only testimony to a hookup or a breakup; but this connection was supposed to remain unspoken and unsuspected (notwithstanding Samantha's habit of making doe eyes at her former paramour). The two characters evidenced no grounds for a romantic attraction, and their continual almost-but-not-quite flirtations were incredible from the start.

    From the beginning, the show had a penchant for sensationalism, which came to predominate in later seasons, with particular emphases on children being molested and women being hit. And then there were the big scenes without significance: Jack tells one of his agents, "You keep screwing things up, one more time and you'll be pounding the pavement"; but the agent hadn't screwed up before, and his status was back to normal next week. There were a few outright misfires, notably a dream play with one of the regular cast in disguise (but recognizable from the first shot).

    As the show went on it continued to present many good stories and scenes, but more and more often these came to center on the team members rather than the victims. The writers had to strain increasingly to devise plots that weren't mere variations on what had come before, and so they came to rely more and more on crime show brutalities. Yet they always steered clear of certain subjects, e.g. although it's stated in one scene that wives often go missing because they've been murdered by husbands, I can't remember a single episode turning on spousal murder.

    In the last seasons the writers tried out variations on Jack's character, at one point trying to make him into a funny man, with doleful results, and at another point turning him, more successfully, into Mike Hammer. However, the biggest error during the latter part of the show's run was the introduction of Miss Puerto Rico (not sarcasm; that's literally who she was). A thick accent isn't an insurmountable barrier for an actor, but Roselyn Sanchez didn't only sound like Desi Arnaz, she sounded like Desi Arnaz playing Ricky Ricardo. She acted like an official greeter at the Puerto Rico pavilion at the World's Fair rather than a federal investigator, and her breezy posturing--cocking her head, sharkishly flashing her teeth, tapping her toe, striking poses at odd angles like a character out of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari--killed every one of her scenes.

    But she didn't kill the show; it just ran out of inspiration--and eventually, out of cases.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am not a fan of addict of this show and only caught episodes before leaving for college. But I have to say, the writing is very good and the actors are just as good.

    What really caught my attention was 'James Marsters' someone who I have loved since Buffy and thought his role as Detective Morris was brilliant.

    The lead actor Frank Lapaglia is brilliant as the head of this unit and his relentless quest to find the missing and punish the wicked. I love his tough guy attitude and his interrogation skills.

    Poppy Montgomery is simple beautiful and I captivating.
  • As much as I admire Aussie actor Anthony LaPaglia, WAT is generally a very dull show, about people gone missing. LaPaglia is the head of an FBI unit specializing in finding missing persons. Unfortunately, he sleepwalks through most episodes. And his team, with the exception of Marianne Baptiste, is made up of typical B-level TV actors, all very generic and interchangeable. LaPaglia's character initially was introduced on one of the CSI shows. I can recommend watching WAT for one reason and one reason only: If there is no LAW & ORDER or LAW & ORDER SVU episode playing. Then it is better than nothing. It's like COLD CASE or CROSSING JORDAN: They are good enough to watch while waiting for LAW & ORDER. And I will say WAT is a cut above any of the CSI shows.
  • If this hadn't been on sale for an extremely low price, I would never have seen it, which would have been my loss. This was good. Interesting stories, usually well-told and a cast of likable "good guys."

    This show, which follows the number one-rated CSI show that precedes it on Thursday nights, is another Jerry Bruckmeier production and it shows. That means it will be stylishly shot, interesting, have a 40-ish male in the lead who is calm, have a racially diverse young crowd of people working for him, corny (expect a song the last two minutes with some corny ending), and a little bit of Liberal preaching here and there. All of that seems to add up to a hit show.

    The best episodes in this first year came in the first half of the season, so it got viewers hooked. Straight, interesting crime stories. Then the PC baloney began to slowly infiltrate the stories along with some melodrama about the characters' personal lives. Who cares? Just give us the crime stories. Overall, I am not complaining. It was good first year and I enjoyed every episode except the last two-hour special which was nothing but a man sobbing and whining about his dead wife for most of the show.

    Of the supporting cast, I liked Enrique Murciano the best with the boss, Anthony LaPaglia, a close second. Poppy (nice name) Montgomery was easy on the eyes but I didn't care for her attitude.

    Finally, where is the second season on DVD? What's the delay?
  • "Without A Trace" is my guilty secret.

    Solidly acted, with clever plot twists, it's an above average US cop show where FBI agents track down missing persons. Why then, do I almost feel bad about owning up to liking it? The answer lies in the very smooth nature of the show. Jerry Bruckheimer's big-screen intellect translated into television, proves disarmingly seductive.

    There is nothing ground-breaking stylistically. Told through a series of flashbacks, each storyline adds sufficient weight to the plot to add a new line of inquiry to the FBI presentation board.

    The cast, are key to building the tension. Interestingly for a US show, three of the lead actors aren't American. (La Paglia and Poppy Montgomery are Australian, while Marianne Jeanne-Baptiste is English)

    Although led by De Niro lookalike La Paglia, "Without A Trace" is very much an ensemble piece, with every character battling to stamp their authority on each case.

    I admit the dialogue strays into cop-show cliché occasionally, but this is the unashamed glory of watching it - Big movie sensibilities condensed into an hour of TV.

    In spite your better judgment, on Monday nights, you will end up caught up in the urgency and willing Jack Malone's team on.
  • Now I liked Without a Trace when it first started. It wasn't brilliant, but somehow it kept my attention. But later around the time Rosalyn Sanchez came on the scene, while not as badly as Special Victim's Unit did, it jumped the shark a bit. Without A Trace is slick, with nice photography and interesting locations, while the music is great. The best asset though for me is Anthony LaPaglia, who is excellent as Jack. That said, Without a Trace does have its problems. The story ideas are interesting and are decently written in general, but there is a lot of ponderous pacing in this show. I appreciate it is for character development and atmosphere but there is almost every episode with one scene with nothing happening other than haunting music and reflective facial expressions it does get a bit too much. The show's writing is not exceptional either, not awful granted but it can get uninteresting and repetitive on occasions. I also have to concur about Rosalyn Sanchez, I personally don't think she adds anything to the show, and her character does come across as rather cold and difficult to empathise with. Overall, it was decent, but it is a show of pluses and minuses. 5/10 Bethany Cox
  • I first saw 'Without A Trace' purely by chance, when the first series was repeated on Channel Four this year during the summer. I enjoyed it so much that I resolved to watch the forthcoming second series. Now, it is one of the few television programmes I will record rather than miss.

    The series is set in the Missing Persons' Department of the F.B.I. in New York. Head of the Department is the ruthless, uncompromising but troubled Jack Malone (Anthony LaPaglia). Aiding him in the search for people who have disappeared 'without a trace' is his team of Agents. There is pretty, sensitive Samantha Spade (Poppy Montgomery), tough-talking, forthright but kind Vivian Johnson (Marianne Jean-Baptiste), handsome, charming Danny Taylor (Enrique Murciano) and thoughtful, intelligent Martin Fitzgerald (Eric Close).

    The strengths of the programme are its intelligent, slick, intense, twist-in-the-tale story lines and the strong, rounded characterisations of the five leads.

    The stories deal with topical, thought-provoking issues, such as the exploitation of illegal immigrants, parental pressure on a child prodigy and the consequences of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers.As each case unravels, nothing and no-one is what it seems to be. Nor do all the disappearances have happy endings.

    The five leads are played strongly, the strengths and weaknesses of their contrasting characters brought out with the unfolding of the story and the twists and turns of the plots. As yet, we do not know a great deal about their personal lives. Malone is estranged from his wife and has two young daughters. Vivian is married with a teenage son. Samantha, Taylor and Fitzgerald are not married although Fitzgerald has family because he speaks of his nieces. Taylor had a less-than-privileged upbringing which included being stabbed. Maybe more on this is to come? Notwithstanding, the agents work well together and there is little rivalry, only a mutual desire to solve the disappearance and bring any criminals to justice.

    I cannot recommend 'Without A Trace' too highly. It is not always easy to watch; but, always worth it, I hope it runs for many years.
An error has occured. Please try again.