Michael Parks (1940-2017)

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne

User avatar
Saturn's child
RR Diner Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:38 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Saturn's child »

Agent Earle wrote:Also, his performance as the world-weary sot of the real-life 19th-20th century writer Ambrose Bierce in the very underrated From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter cannot be topped - no-one can play a drunk like Parks!
He played Ambrose Bierce??? :shock: I'll definitely hunt down Dusk Till Dawn 3, on this premise alone. Thanks for the tip!

& hats off & glasses raised to Michael Parks; 77 is a decent innings in my book. Still sad to see him go, but thankful for the rich & interesting legacy he left behind.
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Agent Earle »

Saturn's child wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:Also, his performance as the world-weary sot of the real-life 19th-20th century writer Ambrose Bierce in the very underrated From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter cannot be topped - no-one can play a drunk like Parks!
He played Ambrose Bierce??? :shock: I'll definitely hunt down Dusk Till Dawn 3, on this premise alone. Thanks for the tip!
You betcha, and what a performance it was! Seek it out by all means, you won't be disappointed. It's even more fun if you're a horror fan, but Parks' turn definitely makes it worthwhile even if you're not. Love it how they tied Bierce's real-life disappearance to the fictional events in the movie; it really is a criminally underrated flick, much better than the tepid second part and a nifty (albeit a lower-budgeted) companion piece to the first part's extravaganza (where Parks also sets has a very savory cameo in an opening scene at a roadside convenience store, but I'm sure you know that, right? Anyway, I always considered his appearance in the first movie an all too brief one, but then, bam!, out comes the third one, and he's one of the main characters in it :) ).
User avatar
Saturn's child
RR Diner Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:38 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Saturn's child »

Agent Earle wrote:You betcha, and what a performance it was! Seek it out by all means, you won't be disappointed. It's even more fun if you're a horror fan, but Parks' turn definitely makes it worthwhile even if you're not. Love it how they tied Bierce's real-life disappearance to the fictional events in the movie; it really is a criminally underrated flick, much better than the tepid second part and a nifty (albeit a lower-budgeted) companion piece to the first part's extravaganza (where Parks also sets has a very savory cameo in an opening scene at a roadside convenience store, but I'm sure you know that, right? Anyway, I always considered his appearance in the first movie an all too brief one, but then, bam!, out comes the third one, and he's one of the main characters in it :) ).
I am indeed a horror fan, & a Bierce (/weird fiction) fan to boot, so I'm sure I'll get a kick out of it! The first Dusk Till Dawn is great, I've loved it since it came out (& it turned me into Parks fan... what a cameo). I was also lucky enough to catch it on the big screen a couple of months ago which was fun. I watched the second film many moons ago & didn't get much out of it, so didn't follow the series any further (nor the television adaptation)... very glad to hear the third film is both good & features a lot of Parks! :D
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Agent Earle »

Saturn's child wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:You betcha, and what a performance it was! Seek it out by all means, you won't be disappointed. It's even more fun if you're a horror fan, but Parks' turn definitely makes it worthwhile even if you're not. Love it how they tied Bierce's real-life disappearance to the fictional events in the movie; it really is a criminally underrated flick, much better than the tepid second part and a nifty (albeit a lower-budgeted) companion piece to the first part's extravaganza (where Parks also sets has a very savory cameo in an opening scene at a roadside convenience store, but I'm sure you know that, right? Anyway, I always considered his appearance in the first movie an all too brief one, but then, bam!, out comes the third one, and he's one of the main characters in it :) ).
I am indeed a horror fan, & a Bierce (/weird fiction) fan to boot, so I'm sure I'll get a kick out of it! The first Dusk Till Dawn is great, I've loved it since it came out (& it turned me into Parks fan... what a cameo). I was also lucky enough to catch it on the big screen a couple of months ago which was fun. I watched the second film many moons ago & didn't get much out of it, so didn't follow the series any further (nor the television adaptation)... very glad to hear the third film is both good & features a lot of Parks! :D
Well, then, at least this otherwise sad occasion is good for something - namely for alerting you to the flick that should be right down your alley :-)
I consider From Dusk Till Dawn first part to be one of the greatest vampire flicks ever and surely one of the best genre movies to come out of the pretty lackluster 90's (in the VHS days, I used to always treat myself to the double bill of FDTD and John Carpenter's Vampires, as they have a similar Western-ish tinge to them; btw, Vampires has a top-notch performance from Sheryl Lee as a vampirized victim, plus James Woods in his bad-ass mode is always a good thing!). The second one was an all-around letdown (the story doesn't sound bad on paper but the execution is just yech!) and this fact makes the third one seem all the better; most people have regrettably been turned away from the franchise by then, and the fact that both part two and three have been direct-to-video releases didn't help promo-wise. Still, what a great treat for those in the know - an underdog that actually succeeds against all odds!
I've been hearing some good things about the TV version, so I'm bound to check it out sooner or later, particularly since Robert Rodriguez (part one's director) has had a major hand in its crafting; it seems the show is now over after just three seasons, so it shouldn't be much of an undertaking.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Gabriel »

Saturn's child wrote: I am indeed a horror fan, & a Bierce (/weird fiction) fan to boot, so I'm sure I'll get a kick out of it! The first Dusk Till Dawn is great, I've loved it since it came out (& it turned me into Parks fan... what a cameo). I was also lucky enough to catch it on the big screen a couple of months ago which was fun. I watched the second film many moons ago & didn't get much out of it, so didn't follow the series any further (nor the television adaptation)... very glad to hear the third film is both good & features a lot of Parks! :D
The third film is sadly underrated, overshadowed by the abysmal FDTD2. The best way to describe The Hangman's Daughter is: 'Imagine the Robert Rodriguez of the 1990s, who made El Mariachi on a shoestring budget, made a vampire film instead.' It has very much a feel of El Mariachi to it. It also hints at aspects that come into play in the TV show.
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Agent Earle »

Gabriel wrote:
Saturn's child wrote: I am indeed a horror fan, & a Bierce (/weird fiction) fan to boot, so I'm sure I'll get a kick out of it! The first Dusk Till Dawn is great, I've loved it since it came out (& it turned me into Parks fan... what a cameo). I was also lucky enough to catch it on the big screen a couple of months ago which was fun. I watched the second film many moons ago & didn't get much out of it, so didn't follow the series any further (nor the television adaptation)... very glad to hear the third film is both good & features a lot of Parks! :D
The third film is sadly underrated, overshadowed by the abysmal FDTD2. The best way to describe The Hangman's Daughter is: 'Imagine the Robert Rodriguez of the 1990s, who made El Mariachi on a shoestring budget, made a vampire film instead.' It has very much a feel of El Mariachi to it. It also hints at aspects that come into play in the TV show.
So you'd recommend the TV show as well?
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Gabriel »

Agent Earle wrote:So you'd recommend the TV show as well?
Eeeeerrrrrrmmmmm... weeeeeellllll...

Excuse the pun, but I guess it's a case of 'suck it and see!' I've watched some of season one, but wasn't blown away and drifted off to other programmes. It might well improve, but with so many good shows out there, I often drift away if the first five or six episodes don't grab me. I feel that, if a movie can grab you to keep you there for ninety minutes, and a TV show fails to do that in the space of five hours, it probably won't.

FDTD: the Series feels a lot like the first movie dragged out well beyond requirements. Put it this way, the entire first episode is basically the iconic first scene of the movie stretched to three quarters of an hour and lacking Michael Parks. Don Johnson is no substitute and it had me wishing they'd kept Michael Parks for the one episode – he was great as McGraw... all the different McGraws. Also, DJ Cotrona is no George Clooney. He's also not really all that interesting as Seth Gecko.

I might go back to it, but it didn't make me feel it was a priority.
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Agent Earle »

Gabriel wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:So you'd recommend the TV show as well?
Eeeeerrrrrrmmmmm... weeeeeellllll...

Excuse the pun, but I guess it's a case of 'suck it and see!' I've watched some of season one, but wasn't blown away and drifted off to other programmes. It might well improve, but with so many good shows out there, I often drift away if the first five or six episodes don't grab me. I feel that, if a movie can grab you to keep you there for ninety minutes, and a TV show fails to do that in the space of five hours, it probably won't.

FDTD: the Series feels a lot like the first movie dragged out well beyond requirements. Put it this way, the entire first episode is basically the iconic first scene of the movie stretched to three quarters of an hour and lacking Michael Parks. Don Johnson is no substitute and it had me wishing they'd kept Michael Parks for the one episode – he was great as McGraw... all the different McGraws. Also, DJ Cotrona is no George Clooney. He's also not really all that interesting as Seth Gecko.

I might go back to it, but it didn't make me feel it was a priority.
Well, that doesn't sound at all good. Though I enjoyed FDTD The Movie so much the idea of stretching it to the whole TV season didn't sound bad when I heard it initially - but I guess the devil's in the details, like the cast list (the movie had the most perfect cast, it's hard to imagine how anyone could match, let alone top that; at least the series kept Danny Trejo, as I'm led to believe). I still might give it a whirl (or a "suck", to quote you :) ), especially since season 2 and 3 are supposedly where the mythology progresses beyond what we've seen in the movie. And the vampire mythology hinted at by FDTD 1 and 3, what with the whole Aztec thing etc., always intrigued me!

Oh, always refreshing to find a fellow FDTD 3 appreciator! :) Btw, what do you think of Carpenter's Vampires, if you've seen it, that is?
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Gabriel »

Agent Earle wrote:Oh, always refreshing to find a fellow FDTD 3 appreciator! :) Btw, what do you think of Carpenter's Vampires, if you've seen it, that is?
Yeah, it's a little gem that people probably wouldn't even think to watch, especially after Texas Blood Money was so feeble. I might well get through to season two of FDTD, but it'll mean gritting my teeth (is that a vampire pun too? :D ) Through the first season.

As for John Carpenter's Vampires, It's a real treat of a movie. It's absolutely ages since I've seen it, but I remember really enjoying it. It's not the brightest spark in the room, if you catch my drift, but it's great company!
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Agent Earle »

Gabriel wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:Oh, always refreshing to find a fellow FDTD 3 appreciator! :) Btw, what do you think of Carpenter's Vampires, if you've seen it, that is?
Yeah, it's a little gem that people probably wouldn't even think to watch, especially after Texas Blood Money was so feeble. I might well get through to season two of FDTD, but it'll mean gritting my teeth (is that a vampire pun too? :D ) Through the first season.

As for John Carpenter's Vampires, It's a real treat of a movie. It's absolutely ages since I've seen it, but I remember really enjoying it. It's not the brightest spark in the room, if you catch my drift, but it's great company!
Glad to hear it. It's definitely in the category of guilty pleasures - it didn't do too well when it came out, I think, and it was one of the reasons Carpenter pretty much abandoned genre filmmaking (a couple of later ventures into it notwithstanding), since he had a lot riding on it (and it wasn't for the first time his movies were unfairly shitted all over upon their release - but unlike a few of the others that enjoyed a later renaissance, Vampires has not ever been reappraised and is sorta stuck in the time when it came out and didn't meet people's expectations).
Yeah, I exactly get what you mean by it not being the brightest spark in the room, but boy is its companya FUN one. And that whole cast ROCKS! Also, like in the case of FDTD, it was followed by a couple of cheaper, direct-to-video sequels and again like in FDTD's case, the second one (starring Jon Bon Jovi as a vampire hunter if anyone's interested) is a real turd; what's NOT like in FDTD's case is that the third one is even worse than the second one (and not even Bon Jovi's fans can get anything out of it :) ).
User avatar
Hockey Mask
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Hockey Mask »

Here is a great tribute to Michael Parks from Kevin Smith.

User avatar
Eater of Iguanas
RR Diner Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:17 pm

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Eater of Iguanas »

And he was two different characters in the two halves of KILL BILL! His mesmerizing long-take monologue from the second part is one of my favorite scenes in the whole project (which is saying a lot - it might actually be my second favorite Tarantino behind RESERVOIR DOGS).

I find the 2nd season intrigue in and around One-Eyed Jack's mostly lackluster (ugh, that rescue scene where Jean meets his maker might as well be from a MAGNUM, P.I. episode, it's so late '80s TV-routine). But on my first-ever complete series rewatch last year, I found Parks a pleasure to watch and listen to, although the character on paper isn't much. I wonder if that was where Tarantino first took notice of him. But probably not - no doubt it was in some obscure drive-in movie from the '70s that he'd hyperactively talk up while waving his arms around if you asked him.

Thanks to folks above for alerting me to FROM DUSK TIL DAWN 3. Adding it to the Ever-Growing List. I never would have thought to check it out, left to my own devices.
User avatar
Eater of Iguanas
RR Diner Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:17 pm

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Eater of Iguanas »

Hockey Mask wrote:It is amazing how many TP losses we've had in the last year.
#$%^in' law of averages! :(
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Agent Earle »

Eater of Iguanas wrote:And he was two different characters in the two halves of KILL BILL! His mesmerizing long-take monologue from the second part is one of my favorite scenes in the whole project (which is saying a lot - it might actually be my second favorite Tarantino behind RESERVOIR DOGS).

I find the 2nd season intrigue in and around One-Eyed Jack's mostly lackluster (ugh, that rescue scene where Jean meets his maker might as well be from a MAGNUM, P.I. episode, it's so late '80s TV-routine). But on my first-ever complete series rewatch last year, I found Parks a pleasure to watch and listen to, although the character on paper isn't much. I wonder if that was where Tarantino first took notice of him. But probably not - no doubt it was in some obscure drive-in movie from the '70s that he'd hyperactively talk up while waving his arms around if you asked him.

Thanks to folks above for alerting me to FROM DUSK TIL DAWN 3. Adding it to the Ever-Growing List. I never would have thought to check it out, left to my own devices.
KILL BILL is a dynamite movie all-around, though I only ever saw it once, years ago - need to change that ASAP!

To me, One-Eyed Jack's stuff from S2 is one of the strongest points of the show, and Jean Renault's bad-ass persona has very much to do with it. He comes across as the kinda bad guy who can have all of other TP bad guys for breakfast and it's aces they made him fixated on Cooper (LOVE the Dead Dog farm resolution!). Btw, what did you mean by the "rescue scene where Jean meets his maker"? Is it the scene where Cooper and Truman rescue Audrey? But where is anyone meeting his maker???

No problemo re: FDTD 3. Now it's up to you to also spread the word, if you'll like the flick, of course :)
User avatar
Eater of Iguanas
RR Diner Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:17 pm

Re: Michael Parks (1940-2017)

Post by Eater of Iguanas »

Agent Earle wrote:Btw, what did you mean by the "rescue scene where Jean meets his maker"? Is it the scene where Cooper and Truman rescue Audrey? But where is anyone meeting his maker???
You're right, I totally bolloxed that up. Jean kills Blackie, right? And there's some other dying. But of course Jean doesn't die, he gets taken at Dead Dog Farm later (wait, is that right?). In my defense, it was late and I was punchy-tired when I typed that.

And more importantly, I've only seen that episode twice and the whole post-Leland stretch blurs together for me - I've largely avoided rewatching it, as I find it of very little value until the partial recovery right at the end. But we've rehashed my stance as an unusually harsh detractor of S2 plenty already on this board.

[we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic] Sad about Michael Parks, isn't it?
Post Reply