Telika: Nope. McAdams is excellent in it, but that doesn't save it.
DaCostaBR: Did they at least do anything with the more eerie aspects of the series? The first one was fairly down to earth for the most part, but I liked that undercurrent of wrongness in the world. If the culprit had turned out to be supernatural in some form, I would have totally bought it. Whatever trailers I've seen for the second season I don't remember having any of that.
No, really no. Nothing in common. It's like a movie in a whole dfferent genre. The first season was borderline twinpeaksian, the second season is more ellroyish (well, with, ironically, a couple of sequences borrowed from twin peaks' most down-to-earth "one eyed jack's" subplot). It doesn't make it bad, it makes it more commonplace, less unique than the first season.
But I saw the second season before the first one, and I was "meh". The first season, afterwards, blew my mind. So, it's not a simple matter of expectation and genre switching. The second season did feel as a bloated attempt at ellroy grit, and it did feel artificial, dragging. It's a mostly predictable tale of career gangsters, global corruption, and potential redemptions, that you already saw hundreds of times. Lots of gloss and good intents, but finally... dunno, redundant ? Plus, I'm definitely no fan of Colin Farrell.
So you're correct. Appreciated or not, this second season has nothing of the first. And I think it's intentional, the author wanted to make some sort of anthology in very different styles. That's why I'd still be curious about the third one, if he makes it.