MOVIE REVIEW: Mud and The Way Way Back because nothing says summer like a coming of age film.

Coming of age films have always been a genre near and dear to my heart, partially because I am sucker for nostalgia. However a good deal of it has to do with the fact that I was 13 years old the summer of 1986 when Stand By Me first hit movie theaters. I vividly remember how it spoke to me and the parallels I saw in my own life growing up in a small town, with a close knit group of friends where I was different and yearned to explore a world beyond our town limits. The film is based on the Stephen King novella about four boys in search of a dead body, who instead find a path away from innocence. Perfectly cast and thoughtfully written, Rob Reiner gets the moments right balancing reflective voice over with truth, humor and drama. The bittersweet joy embodied in the film has stood the test of time to become the benchmark for the genre as a whole.

I was pleasantly surprised to find this summer that Mud and The Way Way Back both offer up coming of age stories centered around strong young male actors with a distinct point of view as they are shown an opening into how the adult world actually functions. What’s truly interesting is they are dramatically different films built within the same story structure. Both films focus on a 14 year old over the course of a summer searching for something to call their own within the confines of a series of events that are less than ideal.  Both find a mentor in men who are at first strangers and quickly become confidants. The structure is so true to form that both movies contain the obligatory scene that offers up a ‘first kiss’ attempt with an ‘older girl/first crush’ that is met with knee jerk rejection. This is where the similarities and formula ceases. What happens next are two divergent films.

"Mud" stars Matthew McConaughey as the title character and event though the film isn’t about him per se, it is the strongest performance Matthew McConaughey has given in a decade, raw and lacking any sense of irony. The story centers on the young boys who befriend him, marvelously played by Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland. It is a film that possesses a wonderfully honest script with very little in the way of grandiose philosophy. Instead the wisdom (and ignorance) is discovered by the experiences these boys gain through their friendship and involvement with Mud, a wanted man hiding out on an island where he is discovered by these young boys. Director Jeff Nichols creates a tone and pace for the film that mirrors the rural Southern backdrop perfectly. I appreciated that the movie doesn’t attempt to redeem the flawed adults. Instead it focuses in on the emotional reconciliation that the two young leads must make as a key part of leaving childhood behind. 

The Way Way Back lacks the emotional depth of Mud, but does possess a great deal of heart. It is also the personification of summers past. In this film the story centers on Duncan, effectively played by Liam James. Duncan is the reluctant part of a summer vacation with his mother (Toni Collette playing against type) and her boyfriend (a relentlessly despicable Steve Carell). James acting gives the viewer real insight to the misery that is evident from the opening frame of the film until he encounters and befriends Owen, played by the under-appreciated and ridiculously funny Sam Rockwell. Owen offers not only a much needed mentor for Duncan, but the serves as the centerpiece for the bulk of the movie’s broad comedy. The script drips with nostalgia and spends a good deal of time laughing at it. Back at the summer house, Duncan’s isolation plays out as he observes the desperation of his mother, the belligerence of her boyfriend and the utter chaos that is their oft drunk neighbor, embodied by Allison Janney who once again reveals the depth of her talents and range of emotions she can portray with the turn of a phrase. The Way Way Back is an uneven film and its heavier moments sometimes feel labored or completely out of left field, but terrific dialogue and really wonderful performances from the cast make this film worth the price of admission. What it lacks in balance it more than makes up for in sincere laughs. 

Both films deserve credit for creating the atmosphere and emotions of that important childhood rite of passage. In a time where summers are driven by blockbusters, it is nice to have the chance to revisit imagery of summers that held innocence and discovery. It is even more fascinating to watch them now as the adult on the other side of that discovery.

Prism Changes: A historic week when the title of this blog hits home.

"With your election, you validated my son. And I wanted to scream, why cant we just get validated for being human beings and being who we are. We need to make sure that it's OK to be who we are."  - Lupe Valdez, Sheriff Dallas,Texas

When I decided to start writing a blog again, I did so because I missed writing about things that simply resonated with me. Coming up with a name for this blog was a challenge because I didn't want pigeon-hole what I wrote about, thus Media through a Mom's Eyes was born. Last week the truth of that title hit home. In a week that gave us historic Supreme Court decisions in both marriage equality and the Voting Rights Act and a twitter explosion under the hash tag #StandWithWendy. I see the positive change happening independent of media spin and tasteless, rude and often anonymous retorts (I'm looking at you Governor Perry). I realized as I watched these events unfold that none had a direct effect on my life, yet it was crystal clear that they would impact the landscape of the world my daughter grows up in. In the 8 years since I became a parent my perspective has changed. I am still the same person with the same core beliefs I've had since my own childhood but my considerations have changed. I look at history now through a prism of how it will intersect with my daughter's ability to carve out a life of happiness for herself.

However, it wasn't until I sat down and watched HBO's new documentary The Out List, that the title of this blog truly came to life. For the first time I became cognizant of the fact that I was watching and absorbing something as a parent, not simply an individual in the world. I watched these brave men and women speak openly, harshly and honestly about their journeys in navigating fear anger and every emotion in between caused by a world that wasn't always accepting and often cruel.

Then it happened. I cried.

Knowing me that's not inherently surprising. Yet I was moved because I realized my tears were those of a parent, not a friend or a peer who has knows what it is to be discriminated against. I was just a parent seeing children who were treated as 'other' in some capacity for no reason other than living their truth and having the character to do so in corridors that were resistant to that level of honesty. As a parent my heart breaks a little every time I see my daughter mistreated or rejected by a peer. Instinct drives you to want to shelter and protect them from the evils that are in the world. You want to shield them from harmful words because experience has taught you that in fact words CAN hurt you right along side those sticks and stones. I cried knowing that there are those who would seek to deliberately hurt my child because she was different.

I cried for another reason as well.

I cried for the triumphant spirit of these individuals, most of whom spoke about 'traditional' families where they found love and support. That in the face of real hatred they were surrounded by acceptance in unexpected places. What struck me so profoundly in the storytelling of Janet Mock, Dustin Lance Black, Lupe Valdez and others was the fact that their connection and love within their families and extended communities is the well from which they drew strength. That validation gave them voice for those who might not have one or feel as though their voice is unheard.

As a parent, that is what I want most for my child. To help her grow into a confidant individual who gives voice to the things that she is passionate about and to not fear rejection of her ideas. I no longer look at the world and nod my head knowingly as a Hispanic female who has raised her voice in the desire to be heard. I look at the conversations happening in my community, in our country and on our airwaves as a parent wondering how it will impact my child and how it will influence her voice. That prism is how I filter my media now. It may not be a view through rose colored glasses, but it is a view of the world through a mom's eyes.

MOVIE REVIEW: Zombies vs. Superhero and the Summer Blockbuster

 

 VS

Summer is a time for large budget movies and larger than life characters. As we escape the heat we look for our movie escapism to entertain first, ponder the fate of humanity later. In that spirit I took to two of the big budget films last week - Man of Steel and World War Z. As a disclaimer, I am the average movie goer. Not a comic book fan nor well versed on Superman lore. At the same time I take pride in the fact that I live in a zombie and vampire free zone, especially given the recent rash of TV shows dedicated to the undead. All things being equal - Zombies win the June blockbuster battle and it wasn't even close.

World War Z

Premise: Zombie apocalypse descends on Brad Pitt and his family during morning rush hour. What ensues is a quest to understand where the origin of this onslaught is in the hopes of finding a way to stop them and their destruction of the human race.

Why it works: The secret to World War Z is that it is a suspense thriller disguised as a blockbuster monster film. Broken into three distinct acts the movie has a relentless opening pace as Brad Pitt's Retired UN investigator Gerry Lane his wife and children get caught as the zombie 'flu' takes hold of Philadelphia. The second act follows Lane as he searches for patient zero, a journey that takes him to South Korea and Jerusalem depicting two vastly different approaches to staving off the zombie onslaught. This second act also provides the movies underlying core premise.

The film is lightening paced and frantically shot in the hands of a director who takes very few pauses before hitting the accelerator full throttle. What I appreciate about World War Z is when we do take those pauses they are well utilized to expand and explain the plot unfolding as well as offering philosophical implications of why this outbreak has seized hold worldwide -“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.” observes a key character when questioning the rapid takeover the zombies have achieved. These moments in the script are smart, pragmatic and written with a sense of urgency. The movie is removed from recent blood/gorefests like 28 Days Later. On the contrary it relies heavily on quiet anticipation of what the next scene holds for the viewer offering more than a fair share of jump from your seat moments. The last third of the film actually slows the pace down to a dull pulse while ramping up the suspense to the point of the film feeling claustrophobic, in a good way.

Not everything works, there are a few frustrating lapses of common sense at key moments in Lane's journey. Overall they are minor quibbles in what stands as terrific two hour roller coaster ride. Pitt's action anti-hero works across the board and he provides a deft hand in drawing sincere emotion at key points along the way. You need not be a fan of the undead to take on World War Z, thrill seekers will find this blockbuster a satisfying combination of large scale summer action with a healthy serving of philosophical consideration of how we look at pandemic outbreaks that threaten society as a whole.

Man of Steel

Premise: Superman's origin story gets a modern technology update with a heavy emphasis on Krypton and big departure from comic hero lore.

Why it Misses: From practically the first frame of the film Man of Steel is fighting against itself. By the end of the 2 1/2 hours I came to the conclusion that this is a tale of two movies edited into one that never quite works. Superman's earth story is told in flashback (with surprisingly strong performances by both Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Those flashbacks are laid over a narration by the hologram formally know as Jor El (a weirdly cast Russell Crowe) providing the viewer with a broader understanding of Krypton and why their planet was destroyed. Somewhere in this exposition is a story about isolation, humanity and where heroism is born. Unfortunately that story is muddled by an action movie that is more keen on showing us what special effects can do in 2013 to the point we are numb from sensory overload by the close of the first hour. Given the fact that two extended fight sequences are still to come makes this movie a laborious exercise of patience without payoff. The absurd over the top performance of Michael Shannon as General Zod is less menacing than it is irritating which causes a major problem in the final battle sequence because the character is so banal I no longer cared what came next or what it was setting up for future sequels. Man of Steel also plays into one of my leading movie pet peeves, the stereotypical neanderthal military who ride against our hero shooting first and asking questions later. It's lazy, pedestrian and cheap.

However the capital offense that Man of Steel is guilty of is the crime of a movie taking itself too seriously. What makes most superhero movies accessible and fun is the film's ability to be self effacing and witty (see Iron Man). Even Christopher Reeve's earnest portrayal of Superman possessed a sense of being 'in on the joke'. Here the movie is devoid of that much needed relief and self awareness. As a result we are left with a film fighting to decide what it wants to be when it grows up and having absolutely no fun doing it.

DOMA, Media and My Family

I am a Supreme Court geek. Some might go so far to say that I am a junkie. Even when the cases aren't momunmental to a culture shift I pay attention. www.SCOTUSblog.com is my goto source for all third branch of government happenings. Each year the docket of cases the Supreme Court takes up is scrutinized by the media. The ones that get talked about are high profile, socially relevant and all show up on the docket with the potential to change how we read the constutiton. By the way, they are ranked in importance in that order. If we just look at the two cases everyone wanted to hear about you can boil it down to a boxing metaphor. DOMA was a knockout and Prop 8 lost on points.

SCOTUS watch for the last two weeks has been all about what the rulings on DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and Prop 8 (the California law banning marriage of same sex couples). A lot of conversation in the run up and through the cases being heard was focused on Prop 8. Not because it was the better case, it's the better story. Much has been written about this storied ballot item. How Prop 8 was a respone to the state allowing for same-sex couples to marry without a change to the state constitution. Mostly it became a lightening rod because it cut to the heart of whether or not marriage is limited to being defined as solely an institution between a man and a woman. The case is mired in a ton of legal back and forth and to be clear the Supreme Court today did not rule on that point.

Quite the contrary, the Supreme Court said something very different in the Perry Case regarding Prop 8. They simply said the case had no legal standing to be brought to federal court. The reason being that the State of California didn't defend the law, proponents (in this case Hollingsworth) took up the case when both the State Attorney General and Governor would not do so and the Court ruled that a proponent did not have legal standing in the federal court. Yes this is in the weeds, but it is important because to read the headlines and commentary you would think Prop 8 had been struck down. It wasn't, it was simply dismissed from Federal court. By doing so the Supreme Court held that marriage remains (as it always has been) a state issue. Don't get me wrong, I think Prop 8 is a crappy law but that wasn't what got ruled on today. What was reinforced was that the Supreme Court upheld the State's rights to define marriage. Over the last year many states have filed and passed laws supporting marriage equality. Today's decision supports that through democratic process, not the courts this cultural shift will occur.

For me the more monumental case was DOMA. The court striking down DOMA as unconstitutional is vitally important. It just wasn't as sexy. The law signed by President Clinton in 1996 was always a bad law. The federal government defining marriage was always an overreach and fundamentally flawed as it was built to descriminate by denying equal rights to all citizens. DOMA blocked the path of many couples to receive federal benefits automatically given to "traditional marriages".  By striking down this law the Supreme Court clearly states that equal rights apply to all. 

For me that was a reason to celebrate. Marriage equality is not about how we define marriage. It is about how we define humanity. This week's ruling from the court, alongside the Loving ruling 46 years ago telegraphs an important American value. Our citizens are created equal. When we as a government provide benefits we can not exclude whole classes of citizens. DOMA's demise is huge because it walks our constitution's talk.

When you cut through the headlines and you abandon the bullypulpits what you are left with is a very profound message - families are born out of love. It doesn't matter what they look like. As someone who has been looked at and described by media generalizations as "other" for being a woman or Hispanic or a single parent and sometimes all three together I know there are people who would rather pigeonhole different as bad. While the Supreme Court may not sway opinion it did protect its citizens from being perpetrated as other and that is a step in the right direction. 

So as a Supreme Court junkie, a person who is surrounded by a cornucopia of families and someone who was giddy to see justice prevail what happened in the Supreme Court matters to me. It should matter to all of us because humanity should always be the guiding principle in how our society changes.

MOVIE REVIEW: Much Ado about Whedon

Prior to reviewing the latest version of the Bard to screen I must make a few concessions.

1) Much Ado About Nothing ranks among my favorite Shakespearean plays and is the one comedy I truly enjoy. I love it’s sarcasm, undertones of cynicism and rapid dialogue. It is timeless because of its themes, particularly as they are embodied by Beatrice.

2) I unabashedly love and adore the 1993 Kenneth Branagh film. In fact I saw it over 15 times in the theater the summer it was released. It is big, bawdy and bright. As a result Emma Thompson's Beatrice has been the voice in my head for the last 20 years. When I read it and think of Beatrice’s passages Thompson's cadence and lithe is what I hear.

3) I have eagerly anticipated Whedon's version for over a year, ever since it became public knowledge that they filmed it at his house over a 12 day period. I was also more than a little skeptical about the film’s casting.

That said with the giddiness of a child on the cusp of summer break I held my breath as the lights went down in the movie theater this weekend. Immediately, I entered Whedon's universe and quickly became enchanted by this modern take that leans into the dark undertones of the play.

Let's begin with atmosphere. Yes this Much Ado is set in Whedon's house and famously shot over a 12 day break between shooting and editing The Avengers. This much talked about point undermines the wonderfully precise backdrop Whedon's Messina provides to the emotional upheavals of our quartet of lovers. Shooting the film in black and white ironically provides a lush softening of the environment rather than a creating a stark contrast. The use of windows, doorways and staircases enhances the sense of ease dropping and lurking that drives much of the play’s manipulations and misunderstandings. After two viewings this weekend, there is not a frame of this film that I didn’t enjoy. From the opening shot to what I can only describe as a perfect closing sequence the tone of this movie works because it is so straight forward in its delivery. Branagh’s Much Ado is very optimistic, almost in spite of the text. While the sarcasm is dialed up in the 1993 version, the cynical aspects are almost entirely absent. Here Whedon presents a very adult telling of this story.  His use of flashback to establish Beatrice and Benedick’s relationship is well crafted and believable. It absolutely enriches their more serious moments together, especially when Beatrice compels him to act on behalf of Hero’s virtue. The somber notes play against the lighter sequences with seamless transition. Whedon’s use of the kitchen and exteriors of his house serve as an extension of the storytelling. However it is his unconventional choices, like Benedick and Claudio staying in a little girl’s bedroom, which offer a hilarious setting that illuminates the absurdity and disdain in some of Benedick’s dialogue about love giving the film a layer whimsical agility that I really appreciated.

Not surprisingly the casting reflects a hodgepodge of Whedon’s television history. I did not watch Buffy or Angel with any consistency so I was most unfamiliar with Alexis Denisoff. As Benedick, I felt like his performance was a mixed bag. He had moments of wonderful physical comedy and deadpan delivery. When he is sitting outside after Beatrice departs assessing what she said he provides what I believe is a perfect line reading of “There’s a double meaning in that”. Unfortunately he didn’t captivate me in most of his exchanges with Beatrice. I felt as though in playing to the darker tones of the play the witty dialogue fell flat. On the contrary, Amy Acker’s Beatrice was interesting to me. It was a much more jaded take on the character that I think worked extremely well in Beatrice’s more serious moments, particularly in her “Oh that I were a man” sequence. Acker’s strongest scene is when Beatrice overhears Hero and Ursula tell of Benedick’s love for her. For the entire scene we are with Acker and with deft body language she takes us from extreme hilarity to a wonderful sincerity that is probably the most poignant moment in the film. When I first read Clark Gregg had been cast, I actually thought he would play Benedick. His Leonato is delightfully dead pan and Gregg plays into the tone of the film probably the best of all the players. Sean Maher creates a deviance in Don John that embodies the cruelty that exists in the play and does so with creepy accuracy that he commands the scene whenever he’s in the frame.

Nathan Fillion may not like Shakespeare, but for me he managed to finally create a Dogberry that I didn’t dread seeing on screen. More often than not Dogberry is played as a loud, obnoxious buffoon. Fillion’s reading of the character is much funnier because it plays into the obtuse vanity of Dogberry and allows the dialogue to show the audience that the man is an idiot. His physical play with Tom Lenk’s Verges offered great Abbott and Costello moments while allowing the discovery of Don John’s deeds to not feel like an exercise of necessary plot device.

Finally, for me the revelation of casting comes from a surprising place. Reed Diamond’s wonderfully relaxed and commanding performance as Don Pedro was enchanting. I was taken with him from his opening line to his melancholy state at the end of the play. When he stands in the kitchen devising his plan to play cupid for Beatrice and Benedick I found myself smiling from ear to ear. His delivery was both accessible and simply a joy to watch. Truth be told, there were moments in my second outing to the movie that I thought he would have made a wonderful Benedick.

This Much Ado has much to offer. The film noir setting embodies this play in a way that makes the dialogue feel extremely modern without ever sacrificing the nuance and layers of meaning in what Shakespeare put on the page. I included the trailer they did for UK release of the film because it captures the emotions and tone of the movie more accurately than the US trailer, which while fun doesn’t give you what really makes this play and by extension Whedon’s interpretation so interesting. This is not your high school reading of Shakespeare. It’s an adult take, with adult beverages and dark sinister tones that drip in sarcasm and in key moment’s great humor. It’s a film I was certainly predetermined to love, but what makes it a film people should see is the fact that it surprised me at nearly every turn. Not bad for a play that’s over 500 years old.

Brilliant But Cancelled: Arrested Development and Firefly are not the only shows that didn't get a fair shot.

Memorial Day weekend gave TV fans the much salivated over return of Arrested Development. In an unprecedented move, Netflix has created a 16 episode season 4 that many marathon watched over the long weekend (although we will never know how many because Netflix doesn't release that information).

Fans of shows with short shelf lives are nothing new. The Browncoats of Firefly have enjoyed a decade long love affair with a series that had a brief 12 episode run. The fact that they were able to make a feature length film was miraculous by industry standards. Spend five minutes on the internet and you can easily see the enduring passion and love of Captain Mal and his crew. That fandom extends to all the fine actors who were a part of the show, sometimes superseding the work and success many have gone on to have in the decade since it's airing. I recently saw several interviews with Alan Tudyk promoting the film '42'. All inevitably asked a questioned that referenced Firefly. It is astonishing to see how this ambitious failure remains intrinsically connected to so many people. The affection the actors and creators have for Firefly is self evident. Watch the 10th anniversary Comic Con roundtable and fan event and you will see just how much loyalty, professional respect and creative harmony resonates with an audience. It was a brief moment in time by TV standards, but I think the real legacy of Firefly will be that good, inventive, original work succeeds, even if it initially fails commercially. Thanks to a combination of the internet, DVD release and Comic Cons rather than fading away into the fabric of TV history Firefly continues to grow in its mystique and fandom.

Firefly actually shares a similar (though less technological) path of films like Citizen Cane, The Wizard of Oz and more recently Blade Runner, all of which were commercial failures. You'd be hard pressed today to find someone who would call any of those films failures. Citizen Cane is often lauded as the finest film ever made. Not bad company to be in if you ask me. One of the best outcomes of DVD releases and now streaming is they have breathed new life into series that were broadcast failures but developed cult followings along the way.

I think the resurrection of Arrested Development is proof that technology has opened up an entirely new avenue for TV shows that were perhaps ahead of their time or the victim of an impatient network. One of the absolute best things about my Roku is bringing my favorites back to my living room. I can watch series I missed along the way and more importantly I can revisit shows that never quite got off the ground. Here are some of my personal picks. What would yours be?

For the purpose of this list any show that got less than a full three seasons qualifies and because they are already mentioned above I am not including Firefly and Arrested Development to the list below. They are the gold standard of brilliant but cancelled.

My list of Brilliant But Cancelled:

1. Sports Night This is the show The West Wing killed. It was one of Sorkin's more insightful settings and was littered with a terrific cast, lead by Peter Krause and Josh Charles. When people talk about Newsroom all I think about is that it owes its success to a format initiated by this great series. It ran for only two seasons and the back 5 episodes felt the absence of Sorkin's care and feeding. However, it doesn't take away from the fact they had a first season that simply did not have a bad episode. It was funny, a tip of the hat to sports fans and contained a noble heart, often seen through the wonderful Robert Guillaume. Here's Joshua Malina's first scene from the pilot, it is the interview to end all interviews and shows you just how underutilized Felicity Huffman's talents were on Desperate Housewives.

2. Boomtown This was no ordinary 'law and order' procedural. Boomtown was a creative twist on the genre by taking a "Sound and Fury" approach to storytelling. Audiences watched the episode and crime unfold through the points of view of several key vested players including investigators, a reporter, lawyers and cops. The show weaved intricate connections among the characters that were dished out with just enough prudence to entice the viewer. It put Donnie Walberg and Neal McDonough at the center and made a compelling drama that deliberately abandoned linear storytelling. By season 2 NBC execs forced the show's creators to change to a more traditional format. Doing so spelled the death of the show. However the first season in particular had wonderfully dark, morally ambiguous characters that make this show worth the time.

3. My So Called Life This show will forever be known for launching Claire Danes career. However what it did in one season was honestly portray the cruel, self-centered, self-consciousness that lives in the heart of every high school girl. It took real life subject matters head on and navigated them through the prism of teen angst. That one of the leads was a young gay boy was revolutionary at the time the show aired. That it didn't completely stereotype the character speaks to the care the show's creators took. Plus we all were in love with a Jordan Catalano in High School. I am always astonished at the fact that this show only lasted a season, especially when I think of the poorly written and plotted 'teen dramas' that have long shelf lives today. It's a gem that was ahead of its time.

4. Freaks and Geeks The definition of high school identity was at the core of Freaks and Geeks. Set in the 80s it provides a backdrop of the torments of school through humor and painfully accurate plot points to what life is like inside battles of the High School social structure. Where My So Called Life was darker in that tortured teen portrayal Freaks and Geeks reflected the mood of being a teen in the 80s which had a lighter, awkward sensibility. It was a show that never found an audience until after it was gone, but usually makes most cult fan base lists. It's also an opportunity to see the likes of Jud Aptow and Seth Rogen before the became movie phenoms and in my opinion at their creative best.

5. Eli Stone I adored this show and it's completely off the wall premise of an attorney who hears the guidance of God through messages that are telegraphed in musical interludes, initially from George Michael. The show was a midseason replacement and victim of the writers strike, never really able to recover from the delay between its first and second seasons. It doesn't diminish the less than altruistic journey our lead character takes and how engrossing some of these episodes were. What makes the show work is Eli is reluctant to follow this morality quest. Truth be told, I grew a big old crush on Johnny Lee Miller when this show aired. His sincerity on screen is infectious and even within the outlandish plot devices the show achieved a sense of honesty. Eli's character was deeply flawed and his integrity grew from actions not of his own making, but certainly of his own choosing which made the redemptive tone of the show feel earned.

Honorable Mentions:

Golden Boy - Of the 2013 freshman, this was the worst case of network misplacement. If it had been on NBC I think it would have gotten a second season. On a crowded niche viewing market on CBS it never found its footing. It's a shame and if you want to see some wonderful performances in a promising drama Golden Boy is where you should look.

Dead Like Me - Here was a show whose premise was so strange that even Showtime had a hard time defining it. Anytime you have a show that gives me Mandy Patinkin I am in. This show was no different. While it could be wildly inconsistent it was never uninteresting.

Terriers - Plagued with an awful name, a 3rd tier network and poor marketing this show came stumbling out of the block. It was a buddy crime drama with an ex-cop and an ex-con serving as private investigators. Deeply sarcastic and dark (it had an episode called "Fustercluck" ) It only lasted a season, but it was a hell of a season  and worth the time if you have any love of the crime genre.

The Job - This is Dennis Leary's undervalued and underrated show before he found great success on Rescue Me. This show was quintessential Leary and for those of us who love his stand up this show was a pure joy. Louie CK has become a bit of a TV darling for his Louie show. I wish the same had happened for Leary with The Job. If you have any affection whatsoever for Leary's comedy this show is mandatory viewing.

The Riches - Who knew Eddie Izzard and Minnie Driver could make a dramedy about travelers engaging and funny all at the same time. Add in Margo Martindale and this little gem was TV delight. It got points from me simply for its unusual subject matter of con-artist gypsies trying to live in upper middle class America. Izzard is amazing and Driver makes an interesting departure from what she's been known for in her films. The show isn't perfect and has Swiss cheese plot holes but it is entertaining from beginning to end.

What show did you think was gone too soon? Which one in the age of Roku, Netflix and Hulu Plus will you be checking out sooner rather than later?

SEASON FINALE:Orphan Black - Clones, clones everywhere who do you trust? Answer: Tatiana Maslany

Orphan Black is the best series to show up in 2012-2013 season. When I wrote "Clone War" encouraging people to watch I didn't know the season finale would actually set one in motion. More on that in a minute. Be forewarned this review will eventually provide spoilers because there is no way to talk about this action packed episode without them.

As I touched upon in my prior blog post this show soars on the widespread wings of Tatiana Maslany. Her ability in a ten episode arc to create depth and differentiation between Alison, Cosima, Helena, Sarah and Beth is nothing short of breathtaking. That Rachel has been added to this clone clan in the finale and she has a clear voice in this genetic chorus speaks to Maslany’s expert handling of this complex series. At no point does she short change a performance and each character benefits from Maslany's nuanced physicality. Of all the clones, Alison best represents this fact. She has served as the comic relief among the clones and her scenes with Felix have been priceless. Yet it was her shifting of emotions and actions particularly in the last three episodes that was a revelation, unexpected and completely believable. If I have a criticism of this finale it was the lack of screen time for Felix and Paul, the two men flanking Sarah's life and probably the only people she can really trust. Given how much happened it was a forgivable offense. This season finale did what a great show should. It answered some key questions, drew clear lines of alliance, set up next season's central questions while cleaning house on concepts that weren't fleshed out this season. I would say the biggest question going into next season is whether the creators can maintain this delicate balance of thriller and sci-fi along with the shows kinetic pace. What's most striking about the show is that it is utterly fearless. When I think about the opening scene to the closing episode there is an entire family tree that has emerged and how those tree branches link together still left unresolved. It was a season finale with cliffhangers and while I was left eager for more, I certainly wasn't disappointed with where we landed.

Orphan Black has leaned into its storytelling all season. This final 60 minutes made the prior nine episodes look like they were moving at a snails pace in comparison.

What Worked:

Death was the big winner this episode. The single best decision the show made was to kill Helena. Learning she was Sarah’s twin was an interesting twist, but given all that has happened there was no redeeming her character. She also wasn’t a very good messenger for the anti-science movement that turned her into a psychotic killer. Ultimately her purpose was to propel the other clones together and with that plot need served keeping her would have led to dead end storytelling. The twist of having her pose as Sarah to kill their birth mother Amelia was a great jump from your seat moment. Introducing Rachel Duncan hit just right, giving viewers a proclone working for the establishment with motives no less devious then Helena’s. I am assuming this was to establish key opposition for Sarah in season 2. Alison’s descent to the dark side this episode was completed when she watched Ainsley’s life literally go down the drain. This passive murder reminded viewers about Alison’s violent capabilities. Speaking of Alison, her husband being her monitor was well played. Not until Ainsley was dead was it truly obvious that he was not a red herring.

What Missed:

One thing that Orphan Black barely touched upon was the battle between science (Neolutionists) and anti-science (Prolethians). I assume this battle that resulted in Helena’s serial assassinations of fellow clones will be better explored come season 2. Helena’s death paves the way for them to do so in a clear, fresh manner. Cosima was my biggest disappointment. She discovers two key pieces of information, she’s sick and the clones are all patented property. Yet this storyline fell flat for me. It was important information but felt like it served the larger plot to Cosima’s detriment. And finally once Sarah is released from police custody there is no real purpose to Art and his partner’s pursuit to figure out Sarah’s story. In an episode that had a lot to do I don’t know why they chose to pursue it.

Open Questions to mull for the 11 months until the Season 2 premiere

Kiera – Who took her? Was it Mrs. S working for Rachel? Speaking of Kiera what super human healing power does she have and how does it tie back to being a child of a clone?

Rachel – How is she the only clone in on everything that is happening and apparently running a great deal of it, even beyond Dr. Leekie?

Who is Mrs. S? How does she factor into the cloning?

How was it possible for Sarah to have Kiera and who is Kiera’s father?

Will Alison’s murder open up a violent streak like her fellow clone Helena?

What are the consequences for her signing the disclosure?

What role is Art going to play next season?

How will the Neolutionists vs. Prolethians back history evolve?

Will Cosima survive?

How many clones will show up next season? Is there a parallel study of a set of male clones on the horizon?

The clone war has come. Sadly we will have to wait a year for it to begin.