Twin Peaks season 3 reviews round-up: Was it worth the wait?

David Lynch's cult TV series returns for another slice of the critical pie - but what's the judgement this time?

It is happening again...

Those simple four words have spurred on something of a cultural hysteria, as the world readied itself for the revival of one of the most highly-acclaimed, and most deeply treasured, television series of all time.

The return of David Lynch's cult TV show Twin Peaks, whose influence has helped shape so much of the modern television landscape, was bound to come under heavy critical scrutiny.

Set 25 years later, both within the context of the show and - more or less - in the real world, the new season has seen its critical reception, though overwhelmingly positive, tussle with one great question: how much should the new Twin Peaks be like the original Twin Peaks?

Check out a round-up of critics reviews below.

The Independent - Clarisse Loughrey

For all the worries fans and non-fans alike may have had about season 3, Lynch has pulled off a surprisingly nimble work; creatively progressive enough to keep up with his current artistic obsessions, yet fixated enough in the world of Twin Peaks not to feel divergent.

Ambitiously surreal enough to feel like a true Lynch original, yet narratively accessible enough in the way that helped gain the original series its legion of cult fans. Truly, it’s the impressive start everyone was hoping for.

The Telegraph - Patrick Smith - 4/5

The juxtaposition of sunny soap opera and dark depravity that made the first series seem like such an accomplished creative experiment was sadly lacking here. In its obsession with creating a perplexing, malevolent atmosphere, it was more redolent of Lynch's later films such as Lost Highway (1997) or Mulholland Drive (2001). No bad thing, of course.

The new Twin Peaks is intriguing and smart, with a percolating sense of dread and nerve-rattling score (Lynch was the sound editor). But in a crowded TV landscape of weirdly provocative series, it needs to work a little harder to remind us why it deserves to be remembered as a landmark in television drama. A damn fine revival? Not quite yet.

The Guardian - Mark Lawson

Now that it’s rare to see a drama with the beginning, middle and end in that order, Lynch has remained ahead of the pack by going even further out there.

With this series, though, he must entice a new crowd while also satisfying those superfans who have spent the last 26 years drafting the show’s return in their minds. By gathering up loose ends and shaking them even looser, the first two hours seem more likely to please those already in the unknown.

But this is a show that radically raised the creative ambitions of TV – we should give it time to reveal if it can be a game-changer again.

Empire - Alex Godrey

Everything is broken. There is so much pain here. Coop, as we found him, was still stuck in the Red Room, which now more than ever seems like Hell itself, as he was visited by some deeply troubled ghosts of the past. Away from the Black Lodge things were hardly lighter, as we visited South Dakota, New York City and Las Vegas. Y

es, there was slapstick and farce, absurdist humour offsetting the violence, but what violence it was: evil Coop’s killing spree was one thing, but elsewhere, Lynch outdid himself. A ghoulish massacre was traumatic, while the aftermath of a mutilation was a world away from Laura Palmer’s beautiful corpse — this was Manson Family bad.

Oh, did you think this would be a comforting nostalgia-fest? Did you think you’d get to hang out with Coop and Bobby and Audrey and feel like it was 1990 again? Did you think Lynch would give you an easy ride?

TIME - Daniel D'Addario

Lynch's impenetrability has grown greater in recent years—earlier films like Blue Velvet or even the first season of Twin Peaks feel uncomplicated by comparison. But inscrutability in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue; if a show is designed not to be understood, it also loses opportunities to connect.

Twin Peaks's first go-round catalyzed fans by using the tools of surrealism to tell a fascinating, sometimes heartbreaking story. Twin Peaks now has made surrealism less of a tool and more of an objective.

Deadline - Dominic Patten

Also, watch your self-appointed heirs reel and scurry into their own creative woods for a while because, from what I’ve seen so far going almost full Eraserhead, Lynch has embraced the vistas and madness that define his best work.

Despite not having made a feature since 2006’s Inland Empire, the Blue Velvet director (who helms the entire new series) has shown he still can conjure dread and darkness. While it may give new fans and old fans narrative vertigo, this Twin Peaks stands in proud succession to its original and solidly on its own.

The New York Times - James Poniewozik

At times it feels as if it were a nostalgic 1990 version of the show is alternating scenes with a colder, harder-edged 2017 version. Whether and how the two come together may determine whether this sample, one-ninth of a unitary work, has staying power beyond the class-reunion phase.

But there’s enough unshakable imagery to promise a few months of unsettled Sunday nights’ sleep. The original Twin Peaks was powered by two questions: "Who killed Laura Palmer?" and "What the hell am I watching?” The reincarnation doesn’t have the first. But it still knows how to get you to ask the second.

Twin Peaks airs 2am on Mondays on Sky Atlantic and NOW TV with the Entertainment Pass, in a simulcast with the USTwin Peaks airs 2am on Mondays on Sky Atlantic and NOW TV with the Entertainment Pass, in a simulcast with the US airing on Showtime. The episode will then be shown again at 9pm on the following day. You can catch up now on season one and two via Sky Box Sets and NOW TV.