Twin Peaks

A Lynch devotee could simply not have asked for anything more for Twin Peaks of 2017. This is what Lynch has been working towards his entire career. What he has given is NOT a retread of the Twin Peaks we know circa 1990, this is a new beast entirely. It's dark, it's beautiful, it's everything that makes Lynch one of the finest artist working today.

If the first few episodes start to make you long for the whimsy and hokiness of the original series, keep going through to Ep4. Lynch is giving this world time to breathe this time around. By the time Ep. 4 arrives we being to see where things are heading and watch this new world start to join with the old Twin Peaks we have all been missing for 25 years.

This is Lynch' OPUS.

David Lynch is at his best here in the new Twin Peaks series. There seem to be few restraints on his artistic vision, and it's all framed in a familiar story with Mark Frost's tempering still present.

Disclaimer: if you were not a fan of the original series because it was too weird, or "slow", or disturbing, then you will probably not like this latest season. There are tons of weird and disturbing scenes, and Lynch has no qualms making you stare at something for long periods of time. This has the effect of drawing you in as a viewer, but for some it may be off-putting or even offensive. He definitely, as always, takes firm grip on your viewing experience and will not let go.

I was worried going into watching the first 4 episodes that they would just reunite the cast and kind of riff off the original series. From very early on, however, it becomes apparent this is whole new material. Loved characters are still there (almost all of the old cast), but they are going through brand new things.

However, the charm of Twin Peaks is still alive and well. The most bizarre and yet oddly insightful scenes are counter-weighted constantly with everyday buffoonery.

I was pretty amazed by some of the new visual ideas Lynch had, which shouldn't be surprising because he is a master at surprising his audience, but you never know if someone might just run out of ideas. Clearly this is not the case. In every episode, there is tons to wonder and behold.

I'm very happy that Lynch is directing every episode. In my opinion, much of the "middle part" of the old series was tiresome. This is understandable because apparently Lynch was often off doing his own thing, leaving the production without a guide, but he is apparently fully on-board for this new project, and for that we are thankful.

All of the cast is great, really great, but it's really a treat to see the amazing combination of Kyle MacLachlan's acting under David Lynch's direction. The two just work so damn well together, and there's tons of new material here for MacLachlan to work with. It really is a pairing that ranks up there with Jimmy Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock.

Kudos to Showtime for reviving my favorite show on TV, and allowing David Lynch to do what he does best. Here's hoping the season is a great success and we get even more! I watched the 4 episodes available tonight, and I am sad that it will be two weeks until I see another new one. However, I've waited 25 years for the first one, so a couple weeks shouldn't be too difficult. It's really nice to have an amazing show to look forward to again.

What a fascinating case of mass self-delusion this has been. It's truly amazing and disgusting how heavily people are stroking themselves over their ability to force themselves to choke down something that is so very poorly executed just so they can reach that oh so "clever" hidden story within.

Look, I know that it must be very comforting to keep talking down to people about how they just don't get the weirdness and complexity of it all (because WOW, use of metaphor and non-linear storytelling in the video medium? UNHEARD OF!), but that's really not the problem here. It's the absolutely abysmal pacing and structure. Yes people, we get it. Lynch likes to pull the same old thing out of his bag of tricks that he always has, where he tries to artificially induce unease by drawing scenes out well past their welcome, except instead of the handful of times spread out across a 2-3 hour movie we are now treated to 45/60 minutes of this filler in each episode of an 18 hour saga, leaving very little room for any actual worthwhile content. You don't need to be a mathematician to see that the ratio between the two is incredibly uneven.

But OK, yippee hooray for ARTISTIC INTEGRITY! He has such complete free rein to spew out completely unfettered streams of consciousness that no one at all will dare to tell him that maybe things like having a confused old woman talking to the police about who has the keys to a door for 10 straight minutes is an absolute waste of film, and none of you will dare admit that this pile of slop is in dire need of editing because you're too busy preening about what an artistic genius Lynch is, and how open-minded and avant-garde you are by extension for being able to wrap your heads around a plot that's literally been done a hundred times before in superhero comic books.

A big slow clap for you all.

It's condescending to tell people they don't 'get it', and it's narrow-minded to claim anyone who loves it is pretentious. I adored this new Twin Peaks, and I understand why it's divisive.

In his old age, an artist had a chance to throw a kitchen sink's worth of ideas on screen, under the banner of his old show, with complete creative control. Good on him I say! That creative control means many of the aspects which came from others in the original show are missing.

I was compelled from start to finish. I appreciated its slow rhythms, found the pacing hypnotic. I'd understand why many fans would despise its new form. I wouldn't blame them for it.

If you're after a fully-resolved, tightly-plotted, didactic storytelling, you won't get it. You'll be frustrated by scenes which suggest the story is kicking into high gear in traditional Hollywood ways, only to then be presented with a five minute shot of a man cleaning a floor.

This jarring approach... loose ends, unresolved plots, ambiguity and odd pacing are understandably annoying for many. It does lack the melodrama of the earlier series, but there's still a warmth to many of the characters, you are just less guided by music and tight plotting. It's a feat to me that it is somehow utterly absurd yet simultaneously feels more grounded, but this show is not going to tell you a tight story with a guiding hand.

Personally, I haven't received this feeling from any US cinema in the past few decades, and I love it. Twin Peaks The Return gave me space to let my mind wander in the same way an Apichatpong Weeresthekul film might. That's a very personal thing, for me it's not boredom, it's a space to imagine and open my mind.

There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding David Lynch but his works are the summation of his very clear influences, like any other artist. You can see it all very clearly, and I happen to share many of his loves, so it's exciting for me. Here it's the usual Cocteau, Anger visuals, noir and 50s stylings, but there are clear nods to everything under the cinematic sun, from Jacques Tati to Tarantino and early silent cinema. I loved that, it feels like a celebration of cinema!

The tone jumps from humour to horror in a heartbeat, each episode is jarring in barely-cohesive ways but for me, somehow it coalesced. The show feels liberated, free of expectation and cliché. It put me under a spell, certainly not because I was instructed to by critics at large but because together, all these disparate elements felt refreshing.

I don't think it's a puzzle to be solved, I don't think there's a bullet-point explanation to the story sitting in a locked vault. I do believe the broad intention was to make you think, imagine and question what you're used to being fed by TV and films.

Would I watch it if it weren't called Twin Peaks and weren't by David Lynch? Yes. Should it have been called Twin Peaks, and is it kicking fans in the face by doing so? Very likely. I think that's what makes it so anarchic and brilliant. I also fully understand why many wouldn't want that from Twin Peaks.

A quarter of a century after it ended, Twin Peaks gets a season 3. That in itself is part of the weirdness of Twin Peaks; it's not a reboot, or a remake, it's just ... season 3, picking up just where season 2 left off.

No one but David Lynch would do that.

I suspect whether you will love or hate this series return (and people seem to do one or the other) will depend on what you liked about the original Twin Peaks. If you liked the quirky soap opera aspect of things in plot threads like the lumber mill, well, this might not be for you. If, like me, your favorite scenes were the really weird ones like the hotel scene that began episode 2 and the amazing scene of the kid and the creamed corn, and if you didn't understand while people didn't appreciate the utter brilliance of Fire Walk With Me, then you'll probably like this.

The series begins with the weirdness turned up to ten and the eventfulness turned down to zero, as though Lynch is saying, yes, I made Twin Peaks, but don't forget I'm also the guy who did Inland Empire.

After a while the Inland Empire aspects thankfully become fewer and there is more of the quirky humor of the original series (as in a scene with cops try to track down a key to an apartment), actual story and character, and Lynch's typical approach of painting a placid surface and then showing the rot underneath. And some of the old elements of the series, like a weirdly ageless Kimmy Robertson as Lucy and Lynch as Gordon Cole, are every bit as fun and funny as they were in the original.

At times full Lynchian madness flares up, like the a-bomb test episode that thrilled some people and that annoyed others, like me. Other times, Lynch shocks everyone by actually offering detailed explanaions of some of the mysteries he has raised in the original series and Fire Walk with Me. At times Lynch seems to be saying, "here's a sensible answer to that thing you've been wondering about for years, but before you get too happy here's another unexplained weird thing to replace that."

I wasn't as fanatic about Twin Peaks as some people. I didn't find the pilot especially interesting until funny, eccentric Dale Cooper appeared, and without Kyle MacClachlan I probably never would have watched the second episode. I didn't fully love the series until the incredible weirdness of the second season, and that love didn't last long since the show quickly spiraled into a disastrous mess.

That may be why I enjoy this third season and Fire Walk With Me; they represent David Lynch giving me the aspects of the series I love without all the boring soap stuff.

Some of Twin Peaks is hugely annoying, other parts are utterly fascinating. Overall, I found it very entertaining, and if it's not everything I want (after 4 episodes I rated this 9 stars, but at season's end dropped it to 8), well, that's David Lynch.

One final note. I've seen several reviews saying that the only people who like this series are "hipsters." This is the silliest critique I've ever seen. I'll admit I don't know much about hipsters except they wear funny mustaches and churn their own butter, but my guess is hipsters are not all people who like to watch a revival of a series they don't remember starring a bunch of people old enough to be their parents. Just a guess.

No, you silly 1-star reviewers, I'm not a hipster, and I'm not, as some have suggested, a "paid reviewer" (although if someone can tell me how to make money by writing IMDb reviews please do so). I'm just someone who likes David Lynch when he's very weird but not tediously, incomprehensibly so. And that's what, for the most part, Twin Peaks the Return gives its audience.