Hulu is hiding a devastating detective thriller show that's perfect if you loved 'The Killing' 62%

By Brittany Vincent53%

7/12/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Appeal to Emotion, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.8% saturation with 265 hits. Analysis detected 1,572 faulty-reasoning hits from 592 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.1% and a BS Rank of 62% (8,247 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

You might know Billy Campbell as the hero of "The Rocketeer" or as the brooding mayoral candidate on AMC's "The Killing," but you almost certainly missed him delivering some of the best, saddest work of his career in a hidden gem available on Hulu. 
In "The Cardinal," he plays homicide detective John Cardinal in frozen northern Ontario who whispers half his lines, as if saying them any louder might crack him open. 
And that's just the start: Karine Vanasse plays the partner secretly assigned to investigate him for corruption. 
We doubt you've ever seen it (or even heard of it), but it really is that good. 
When the Toronto Star reviewed the first season, the headline dubbed it "The Killing for Canada." 
It absolutely holds up to that comparison, except "Cardinal" swaps political intrigue for a sense of creeping dread. 
It dares to be slow and unbearably tense at the same time, which is exactly what makes it such a great watch. 
If you are ready to dive in, you're in luck: All four seasons are streaming right now on Hulu. 
What is ‘Cardinal’ about? 
John Cardinal (Billy Campbell) is a homicide detective in Algonquin Bay, a small, frozen city in northern Ontario. 
Months before the series opens, he was pulled off the homicide squad for refusing to let go of a missing-teenager case everyone else had filed away as a runaway. 
Except he was sure she didn't run. 
Then her body turns up, frozen, in an abandoned mine, and Cardinal is quietly proven right and handed the case back. 
He gets a new partner, Lise Delorme (Karine Vanasse), who's been hired to build a corruption case against him. 
The department thinks he's been on a local drug dealer's payroll, and Delorme is there to catch him at it. 
Cardinal becomes convinced that a serial killer is working in the area, and the two of them are stuck solving one murder while one of them secretly tries to bury the other. 
Oh, and this is only season 1; the show runs for four seasons, each adapting a different Giles Blunt novel, so there's even more to devour after the first season is finished. 
Why I recommend streaming ‘Cardinal’ 
(Image credit: Hulu) I'll be honest: "Cardinal" isn't a fast-paced show, and that's entirely the point. 
Set in the dead of a northern Ontario winter, it moves with a deliberate chill. 
Much of the runtime features two tired detectives driving through the snow, enveloped in silence. 
But if you stick with it, the atmosphere gets under your skin in a way most crime shows never quite manage. 
Those long stretches of quiet and a lead who whispers half his lines only make the sudden bursts of violence land that much harder. 
While that slow-burn style might be a downside for some viewers, it is the entire draw for others. 
The show fully trusts its audience to sit in the discomfort. 
"Cardinal" might look like a standard cop procedural on the surface, but it is something much better. 
Billy Campbell wears grief beautifully, and Karine Vanasse serves as the perfect, tolerant foil for him. 
Plus, the case at the center of each season actually holds together instead of falling apart in the finale. 
At four seasons and just six episodes each, there is absolutely no filler. 
If you want a crime series that takes its time and rewards yours, head to Hulu and start binging now. 
Stream "Cardinal" on Hulu 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.5%Brittany Vincent: 1.7%Tomsguide: 3.0%Confirmation Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 1.8%Tomsguide: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Brittany Vincent: 2.2%Tomsguide: 3.0%Availability Heuristic7.4%This article: 3.5%Brittany Vincent: 2.5%Tomsguide: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 3.5%Brittany Vincent: 0.7%Tomsguide: 0.3%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 5.1%Brittany Vincent: 7.0%Tomsguide: 3.6%Overconfidence Bias5.1%This article: 2.5%Brittany Vincent: 5.0%Tomsguide: 4.6%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 3.4%Brittany Vincent: 3.1%Tomsguide: 1.6%Loss Aversion3.4%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.2%Tomsguide: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 20.4%Brittany Vincent: 4.7%Tomsguide: 4.9%Optimism Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.5%Tomsguide: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Brittany Vincent: 4.0%Tomsguide: 3.9%Negativity Bias19.9%This article: 2.7%Brittany Vincent: 1.2%Tomsguide: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.8%Tomsguide: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Brittany Vincent: 8.3%Tomsguide: 5.5%Halo Effect20.1%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.6%Tomsguide: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Brittany Vincent: 0.2%Tomsguide: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.7%Brittany Vincent: 4.7%Tomsguide: 3.5%Appeal to Authority2.7%This article: 3.0%Brittany Vincent: 1.6%Tomsguide: 1.6%False Dilemma3.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.7%Brittany Vincent: 0.4%Tomsguide: 0.3%Circular Reasoning3.7%This article: 11.0%Brittany Vincent: 7.3%Tomsguide: 5.3%Hasty Generalization11.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.5%Brittany Vincent: 0.9%Tomsguide: 0.9%Bandwagon2.5%This article: 23.5%Brittany Vincent: 8.7%Tomsguide: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion23.5%This article: 2.7%Brittany Vincent: 0.9%Tomsguide: 0.5%Begging the Question2.7%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.7%Tomsguide: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Brittany Vincent: 0.5%Tomsguide: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.4%Brittany Vincent: 1.9%Tomsguide: 2.7%Anecdotal5.4%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.7%Brittany Vincent: 1.0%Tomsguide: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.7%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Brittany Vincent: 0.5%Tomsguide: 0.1%Middle Ground2.9%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.1%Tomsguide: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.2%Tomsguide: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.7%Brittany Vincent: 0.2%Tomsguide: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 44.8%Brittany Vincent: 19.2%Tomsguide: 12.5%Biased Writer Voice44.8%This article: 7.3%Brittany Vincent: 5.1%Tomsguide: 4.2%Indoctrination7.3%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Vincent: 0.0%Tomsguide: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 34.8%Brittany Vincent: 12.0%Tomsguide: 14.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…34.8%

592 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.7%attributed speech576writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageThe Toronto Star • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Toronto Star

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words100% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-46.0 ptsWriter: 46.0%The Toronto Star: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -35.8 ptsWriter: 35.8%The Toronto Star: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%The Toronto Star: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%The Toronto Star: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.