‘The 100’ is TV’s most underrated show

One of the failings of TV criticism is that reviews of a new series are often based on the first episode or few and then not followed up. So a TV drama that starts slowly and goes from good to great isn’t noticed.
Such is the case with the CW’s “The 100,” now in its second season.
The series started out as a CW version of “Lord of the Flies,” cast with the network’s usual assortment of attractive young men and women.
In the first season, 100 juvenile prisoners from an orbiting space colony are sent to the Earth’s surface as guinea pigs to see if the planet is habitable nearly a century after a nuclear war. After losing their communications link to the station, the kids go primal and start to turn on each other. But they have to band together to fight territorial warriors dubbed the Grounders. The first-season finale introduced the Mountain Men, a new group for the protagonists to contend.
The first season of “The 100” got off to a decent start and then kept getting better.
“The 100” earned a Metacritic score of 63, signifying generally favorable reviews.
Critics didn’t have the benefit of viewing the entire season of “The 100” before they gave it thumbs up or down. Almost all the reviews were posted in March 2014 around the premiere, save for one from January 2014.
In the second season, “The 100” went from good to great, with richer character development, fun plot twists and exciting action scenes. Of course, there are no reviews of season two of “The 100” on Metacritic.
I compare “The 100” to HBO’s “Game of Thrones” in terms of story sweep, violence and body count. The producers aren’t afraid to kill off a main character or to throw a curve.
“The 100” is by no means perfect. You have to overlook a lot of scientific implausibility. But it’s a great ride. “The 100” season finale is Wednesday. Thankfully, “The 100” has been renewed for a third season.