Twin Peaks

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 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 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.

First of all, let me start this review of the third season of Twin Peaks by saying that I deeply love the first and second seasons. They truly are iconic seasons of television, and having recently re- watched them, I came to the conclusion that they firmly stand the test of time.

However, one of the main problems I had with the first and second seasons of Twin Peaks (Although it was mainly in the latter, than the former) was it's deviation away from the central component which I believed made the show tick- the mystery. The mystery of Twin Peaks submerged this seemingly 'normal' town into an environment in which there were endless different otherworldly phenomenon at play. The original Twin Peaks created a feeling of uneasiness for the audience through numerous ways, such as Bob. This feeling of mystery and unease however, became somewhat tangled up in many different love stories which were all a bit too common place in the show. Nevertheless, I persisted with it and still found it to overall be an enjoyable show, despite the various James-Donna-Laura-Maddie-Bobby-Shelly-Leo stories which stretched on.

Now, when I got to this season, I was not disappointed. Season Three of Twin Peaks takes the mystical and the downright weird elements of the first and second season and places them into a show of their own. I would imagine that many of the original viewers who enjoyed the soap opera element of the first and second seasons, will be extremely disappointed. This series is unlike anything else that I have ever witness on television (yes, I did say that when I watched Twin Peaks the first time around!). The revival of Twin Peaks has come at the best possible time, for both the show and television. Modern Television now allows for less constraints on many shows, and more recently, risks have been allowed to be made. The original seasons of Twin Peaks were risks in themselves, but they still had boundaries attached to them. Lynch could not deviate as far as he can today. This combination of modern television and Lynch's vision create a spectacle for television which is unlike anything there has previously been. Some of the visual shots of different elements of the mythology in the new season of Twin Peaks, are absolutely remarkable and unique. The precedent for season three is well and truly based upon Lynch's exploration of Twin Peaks mythology.

Whilst there is a new depth to the show, as we travel further afield to New York City and South Dakota end explore the mythology, the scenes which place us back into the town of Twin Peaks contain the finite amount of nostalgia for the series. It doesn't feel as if there has been a shoehorning of nostalgia in this season, rather the scenes feel appropriate and suitable for the show. Therefore, whilst the show is extending its branches beyond the town of Twin Peaks, the return to the town does not feel as if the show is doing it for the sake of it.

Overall, the new season of Twin Peaks is truly a remarkable piece of television. I find myself wondering 'what if?', in terms of what if we never experienced this show returning? This series could be when Twin Peaks hits another level and surpasses the original run. It will take till the end of the season before we can truly determine that. However, I would urge anyone who was interested in the original run, and anyone who is interested in groundbreaking and unique television to give this show a try. You may not like it, it may deviate too far from the original seasons which you enjoyed so much, or you might find it deviates too far from what you are normally used to. Nevertheless, I believe that this is a show which should be watched to at least engage with the uniqueness of the experience that comes with watching it. So sit back, get yourself some cherry pie and a damn fine cup of coffee and enjoy what is a masterclass return to 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.