The original Star Wars trilogy is fondly remembered by those who saw the films upon their original release in theaters, and by many people who've seen them since. But not everyone (read: film critics) was initially captivated by the Skywalker saga, the Force, the galaxy far, far away.George Lucas' 1977 Star Wars film (later renamed Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope) famously opened to fewer than 32 theaters across the United States. But the film's overwhelming popularity forced 20th Century Fox to expand its distribution nationwide - and that was the moment the Star Wars phenomenon ignited... and has never fizzled. Irvin Kershner's 1980 film, Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back, took the saga to new heights (and worlds) and followed A New Hope's footsteps in quickly becoming an astounding critical and commercial success. For its efforts, The Empire Strikes Back is widely recognized as the franchise's best installment to-date. Richard Marquand's Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi, on the other hand, wasn't as well received as its predecessor. The 1983 film marked the concluding chapter in Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy, bringing the Galactic Civil War to an end with the destruction of the Empire, but it also floundered a bit with critics.Related: Star Wars: The Last Jedi Is Certified FreshLooking back on the original Star Wars trilogy, a number of notable film critics expressed enthusiasm for the series, but a group of other critics also made their disdain for Lucas' films known. With Rian Johnson's Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi hitting theaters, we thought it was time to take a look back at the original Star Wars trilogy and see what the worst things critics thought of those movies at the time.This Page: A New Hope
A New Hope
There's no breather in the picture, no lyricism; the only attempt at beauty is in the double sunset. It's enjoyable on its own terms, but it's exhausting, too: like taking a pack of kids to the circus ... It's an epic without a dream. But it's probably the absence of wonder that accounts for the film's special, huge success. The excitement of those who call it the film of the year goes way past nostalgia to the feeling that now is the time to return to childhood. - The New Yorker
Strip 'Star Wars' of its often striking images and its highfalutin scientific jargon, and you get a story, characters, and dialogue of overwhelming banality, without even a "future" cast to them. Human beings, anthropoids, or robots, you could probably find them all, more or less like, that, in downtown Los Angeles today... O dull new world! - New York Magazine
The only way that 'Star Wars' could have been interesting was through its visual imagination and special effects. Both are unexceptional. ... I kept looking for an 'edge,' to peer around the corny, solemn comic-book strophes; he was facing them frontally and full. This picture was made for those (particularly males) who carry a portable shrine within them of their adolescence, a chalice of a Self that was Better Then, before the world's affairs or - in any complex way - sex intruded. - The New Republic
œStar Wars is somewhat grounded by a malfunctioning script and hopelessly infantile dialogue¦ Surrounded by these fascinating creatures, the actors barely hold their own. To be sure, Mark Hamill has a bland-faced innocence as Skywalker, and Carrie Fisher is comically plucky as the distressed Princess Leia, but Harrison Ford hams it up terribly as Han Solo, a cynical space pirate who has œflown from one side of this galaxy to another and seen a lot of stuff. - New York Daily News
The consensus amongst the negative crowd seems to be that George Lucas' Star Wars failed to deliver anything worthy of its box office success. Take away the special effects, they say, and the movie is left without a message and nowhere to go. Critics felt the movie, though intriguing in some aspects, was overall unoriginal and relied too much on its look rather than its story and characters.
The Empire Strikes Back
"The Empire Strikes Back" has no plot structure, no character studies let alone character development, no emotional or philosophical point to make. It has no original vision of the future, which is depicted as a pastiche of other junk-culture formulae, such as the western, the costume epic and the Would War II movie. Its specialty is "special effects" or visual tricks, some of which are playful, imaginative and impressive, but others of which have become space-movie clichés. - The Washington Post
Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation ... "The Empire Strikes Back" is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank. - The New York Times
This movie, of course, is Star Wars II, and while it's hardly the worst sequel ever made”Exorcist II retired that trophy”it's not up to the original either. The spacecraft-laser-battle gimmicks are familiar now, so even though these are the most special of the special effects, they are no longer so fascinating. Worse, the more one sees the main characters, the less appealing they become. Luke Skywalker is a whiner, Han Solo a sarcastic clod, Princess Leia a nag and C-3PO just a drone. - People
The thing that keeps us watching throughout the two rowdy hours is not the progress of the galactic war or the fortunes of the participants nor the sense of danger as they hurl through space or find themselves trapped by Dalek-like tricksters. What makes the time pass bearably is the decor. The special visual effects by Brian Johnson and Richard Edlund, with Norman Reynolds as production designer, create a constant source of fascination and charm to take our minds off the mindlessness of the foreground doings by the goodies and the baddies in their aerial quarrel. - The Daily Telegraph
The Empire Strikes Back is almost universally considered the best chapter in the Star Wars saga, but the above reviewers didn't share that same opinion. While they each brought up various aspects of the movie they disliked, a surprising consensus among many reviewers - not just the aforementioned ones - was that the film lacked a complete story: a beginning, middle, and end.
Return of the Jedi
Unfortunately, it conveys the sense that the machinery has already started to wear down, and the inventiveness to wear thin. To be sure, the film abounds in action. Some new peril besets Luke Skywalker, Han Solo or the Princess Leia almost too regularly every 10 minutes ... It still makes for an eye-filling two hours-plus of entertainment but, despite its huge cast of new intergalactic grotesques, Jedi seems woefully familiar. It's as if the animations aren't the only thing that has been computerized. - The Hollywood Reporter
While a certain amount of drama is found in these revealing scenes, it is somewhat dissipated in the romantic relations between Leia and Solo (which result from Luke disclosing that Leia is his sister). The dialogue given to the lovers is laughable, and their performances match it. So what is presumably intended as a great romantic finale comes to little, which might equally be said of the film as a whole. The appeal, perhaps, will be strongest to the young. The invited audience at the Press show was predominantly juvenile. - The Daily Telegraph
"Return of the Jedi," written by Lawrence Kasdan and Lucas and directed by Richard Marquand, doesn't really end the trilogy as much as it brings it to a dead stop. The film, which opens today at Loews Astor Plaza and other theaters, is by far the dimmest adventure of the lot. All of the members of the old "Star Wars" gang are back doing what they've done before, but this time with a certain evident boredom. ... The narrative line is virtually nonexistent, and the running time, though only slightly more than two hours, seems longer than that of "Parsifal." - The New York Times
Though perfectly fine until now as daringly decent Luke Skywalker, Hamill is not enough of a dramatic actor to carry the plot load here, especially when his partner in so many scenes is really little more than an oversized gas pump, even if splendidly voiced by James Earl Jones. Even worse, Harrison Ford, who was such an essential element of the first two outings, is present more in body than in spirit this time, given little to do but react to special effects. And it can't be said that either Carrie Fisher or Billy Dee Williams rise to previous efforts. - Variety
Overall, the aforementioned reviews for A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi are far from the critical consensus for George Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy, but they do go to show that not everyone thought this franchise had staying power. Of course, that wasn't the case, as this week sees the release of the eighth chapter in the Skywalker saga - 40 years after the release of A New Hope.
While these critics went against the majority, that doesn't invalidate their opinion. The question is, do YOU agree with any of their thoughts on the original Star Wars films? Let us know in the comments!
More: The Last Jedi Box Office Prediction
