25 ans après que les habitants d'une pittoresque ville du nord-ouest américain aient été stupéfaits par l'assassinat de leur reine de bal.25 ans après que les habitants d'une pittoresque ville du nord-ouest américain aient été stupéfaits par l'assassinat de leur reine de bal.25 ans après que les habitants d'une pittoresque ville du nord-ouest américain aient été stupéfaits par l'assassinat de leur reine de bal.
- Nommé pour 9 prix Primetime Emmy
- 21 victoires et 42 nominations au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Sommaire
Reviewers say 'Twin Peaks' Season 3 garners mixed reactions for its surreal, artistic approach and complex characters. Fans appreciate the return of iconic elements and Lynch's unique style. However, critics argue it lacks a coherent plot and deviates from the original's charm. The season's exploration of nostalgia and the supernatural is both praised for its depth and criticized for being confusing and unengaging.
Avis en vedette
If you're not a fan of David Lynch then you're not going to like this show. End of story. Unless you've watched and loved Lynch's movies like Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire, then you're not going to like The Return. This is hardcore Lynch, challenging for even his biggest fans. I wouldn't call The Return a sequel to the original Twin Peaks. It's more a sequel to Fire Walk With Me than anything else, with a few elements of Twin Peaks sprinkled in. So, if you're just a fan of the original Twin Peaks and you're not familiar with Lynch's work, then The Return is not for you. You're not going to like it, I can assure you of that.
This is ARTHOUSE TV. It's not a murder mystery like the original. It's a hardcore surrealist midnight movie style psychological horror. And while I love it because of that, I can see why some people hate it.
This is ARTHOUSE TV. It's not a murder mystery like the original. It's a hardcore surrealist midnight movie style psychological horror. And while I love it because of that, I can see why some people hate it.
Upon first viewing I absolutely hated this show. It wasn't the Twin Peaks I had been excited for, having watched the original series many times over, and I saw few, if any, redeming qualities.
After a rewatch nearly five years later, I had a different mindset in place and made sure to take proper note of clues and plotlines. While I could see more interesting aspects of the "return" this time around, I still cannot possibly give it a positive review.
Sure, there's enough subtext and complexity here for a college course, and there is obviously a high level of craftmanship behind the production, as well as a very pronounced vision guiding everything. But--and I concede that this is of course opinion--that vision clouds the entire show, prohibiting any attempt at a compelling narrative and snuffing out a lot of potentially enjoyable dialogue and acting.
There is a lack of control over the tone, with scenes and performances that stick out like a sore thumb here and there in most every episode, including both completely unfunny lines and unmotivated tugs at your heartstrings. There's artwork and effects work that simply looks awful, probably with a most intentional style but that simply doesn't hold up at the viewers' end. And, as many point out, there is a huge problem in terms of pacing and payoff. Those who are somehow drawn in enough by the mystery playing out appear to ignore this, and I wish I could too!
There seems to be a love-it-or-hate-it thing going on with this show. I would have liked to see more nuanced thoughts than just "David Lynch is a genious, 10/10" or "wtf 1/10". In my opinion, this is a flawed production of a misguided vision in terms of both storytelling and style, but there is enough to the mystery to warrant an attempt at watching. If it didn't waste so much time lost in its own head, it could have been significantly improved.
After a rewatch nearly five years later, I had a different mindset in place and made sure to take proper note of clues and plotlines. While I could see more interesting aspects of the "return" this time around, I still cannot possibly give it a positive review.
Sure, there's enough subtext and complexity here for a college course, and there is obviously a high level of craftmanship behind the production, as well as a very pronounced vision guiding everything. But--and I concede that this is of course opinion--that vision clouds the entire show, prohibiting any attempt at a compelling narrative and snuffing out a lot of potentially enjoyable dialogue and acting.
There is a lack of control over the tone, with scenes and performances that stick out like a sore thumb here and there in most every episode, including both completely unfunny lines and unmotivated tugs at your heartstrings. There's artwork and effects work that simply looks awful, probably with a most intentional style but that simply doesn't hold up at the viewers' end. And, as many point out, there is a huge problem in terms of pacing and payoff. Those who are somehow drawn in enough by the mystery playing out appear to ignore this, and I wish I could too!
There seems to be a love-it-or-hate-it thing going on with this show. I would have liked to see more nuanced thoughts than just "David Lynch is a genious, 10/10" or "wtf 1/10". In my opinion, this is a flawed production of a misguided vision in terms of both storytelling and style, but there is enough to the mystery to warrant an attempt at watching. If it didn't waste so much time lost in its own head, it could have been significantly improved.
10simodeev
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDavid Bowie was set to return as FBI Agent Phillip Jeffries for a cameo but it didn't happen before the musician's death in January of 2016.
- Générique farfeluNone of the cast are listed in the opening credits.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Conan: Kyle MacLachlan/Rob Schneider/Lisa Loeb (2017)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
David Lynch's Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
David Lynch's Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
See how IMDb users rank the films of legendary director David Lynch.
- How many seasons does Twin Peaks have?Propulsé par Alexa
- Can I enjoy this show if I haven't watched the original Twin Peaks?
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Twin Peaks: The Return
- Lieux de tournage
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant