Original American 1980 reviews of the Empire Strikes Back

I'm sorry if this has been covered before.

I remember reading an old Swedish pop magazine from August 1980 that belonged to one of my older siblings. It had a very favorable review of the Empire Strikes Back. I was thinking, many years have passed, but what did the media in the US have to say about TESB back in 1980? I'm especially interested in TESB since it was the first follow-up and the middle act.

 

Here are some of my "favorites":

"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 cliches." -- Judith Martin, WASHINGTON POST, May 23, 1980

"No amount of lightness, however, can lift this movie out of the swamps of Dagobah." -- Robert Asahina, NEW LEADER

"Far less entertaining than the first!" -- John Coleman, NEW STATESMAN

"Empire is simply a minor entertainment." -- Tom Allen, VILLAGE VOICE

"I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called The Island." -- Vincent Canby, NEW YORK TIMES



Well, they're entitled to their opinion, but I think some posters here might disagree.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Wow! I had no idea that some heavy reviewers were this harsh! But surely some reviewers must have been of the opinion that TESB surpassed ANH?

 

Yup those are the same kind of critics who bashed the Prequels to hell, only there are a lot more of them now. It's just amazing to see how critics have no imagination anymore, all they want are real life films with emotion. All they want are Sean Penn film's that make you cry, they don't want fantasy or sci fi movies, and they'll bash them no matter how good they are. The only fantasy movies that have gotten great reviews have been the LOTR movies.

 

here's some of the good reviews:

"The most classic in its style, design and narrative."
-- Bruce Westbrook, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

4/4 "In the glory days of science fiction, critics wrote about the 'sense of wonder.' That's what The Empire Strikes Back creates in us"
-- Susan Stark, DETROIT NEWS

"The balance between action and mysticism in Empire provides fascinating energy."
-- Peter Stack, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

"It balances bloodshed with charm, spectacle with childlike glee. It's a near flawless movie of its kind."
-- Gene Siskel, CHICAGO TRIBUNE

"Star Wars made my eyes pop out when I first saw it in 1977!"
-- Sean Means, FILM.COM

4/4 "It is a visual extravaganza from beginning to end, one of the most visionary and inventive of all films."
-- Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

 

"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 cliches." -- Judith Martin, WASHINGTON POST, May 23, 1980

That can be applied to TPM.

 

...and to ANH, AOTC and ROTJ.

 

"Star Wars made my eyes pop out when I first saw it in 1977!"
-- Sean Means, FILM.COM


... which says what about ESB?



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

I just took them off of rottentomatoes.com, didn't really look at them that much.

 

Rottentomatoes is OT propaganda... they removed almost all of the old reviews of the OT. Originally, they had a ton of bad reviews up, but when the SE was released they took almost all of them down in favor of new gushing reviews. The OT received just about the same level of bad press as the PT. However, the Internet did not exist as a megaphone for negativity, so we grew up thinking these movies were awesome.

We were fooled!

RB

 

It has no original vision of the future

Whoever wrote that review obviously didn't even read the first ten lines of the movie.

It's funny, but a lot of the same reviewers who bashed the OT when it was first released now bash the PT, and say it's not as good as the suddenly wonderful, in their minds, OT. Ladies and gentleman, the hypocrisy of the film critic.

 

After seeing those old ESB reviews, maybe this will fare well for the PT down the road.

 

I just took them off of rottentomatoes.com, didn't really look at them that much.

Ah.

Yes, as has been pointed out to you, those aren't always 1980 reviews.

Now, I actually don't blame Rotten Tomatoes for taking 'em down... people looking for movie reviews are probably interested in what someone says and thinks now, not X years ago. However, it doesn't do much good for this thread.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

There probably eating their words now as ESB has recently made #4 on the list of best sci-fi movies ever. (ANH came in at #3 behind Close Encounters and Blade Runner)

Check it out

Warrior_of_Mandalore Strikes Again!

 

"I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called The Island."
-Vincent Canby, NY Times.


^ I love that one. I'd like to see The Island, it's probably better than ESB!

 

If the internet had been around in the 80s then there would be just as many CT bashers as there are now PT bashers.

-Seldon

 

so true

 

There's no doubt of that. I had plenty of conversations in comic shops and the like back then, and people tore the OT apart.

There's nothing new under the sun.

 

The problem RottenTomatos has when it comes to the OT is, obviously, they weren't online when they were reviewed.

Almost all of the OT reviews on RT are from the Special Editions in '97, when Star Wars was already established as a classic trilogy. I don't think we can blame RT for not tracking down all the newspaper and print media reviews of the OT and typing them up for their reviews section, but it does mean it's very skewed.

ANH had a very split reception...some reviewers just didn't get what Lucas was aiming for at all. One guy famously mistook the Cantina scene for a collection of human freaks rather than aliens(!). ESB did a little better but still pretty much along the same lines of those that liked ANH and those that didn't. And ROTJ had much complaining about the number of puppets in it. All three got ripped on for being packed with 'too many' special effects and not focusing on the human side of things.

Well. There's nothing new under the sun

Basically, while the critics argued back and forth about the films, the public completely fell in love with them and turned out in ever-increasing droves. There's nothing worse for a critic than to be made to feel that their opinion is ignored, so it left a sore spot with quite a few that felt their opinion was superior to the average moviegoer *shrugs*

 

I love the "The Internet is a megaphone for negativity" statement
So true.

 

When I was a kid we (my friends and me) thought ROTJ was the best, followed by ANH... and we all thought ESB was cool but also boring in parts.

It wasn't until around 1993 that I discovered, via the Internet, that it was in fact ESB that was the best! I had not even considered it. The fact is that I had really not watched the movies in years at that point. Going back --as an adult-- I discovered that I did like ESB the most. I also found many of the flaws in ROTJ (though I will never dislike the Ewoks no matter what the Great Internet tells me) and even ANH.

Before the Internet came along I was happy with liking what I liked. I have now sworn myself off Internet gobbledegook. I consider it nothing more than a fad-diet that never worked as promised.

Internet Star Wars opinions are the Cabbage Diet of our time. Drenched in the oblivion of the repugnant.

(I should put that in my sig)

RB

 

Cool sig, RB

 

"It has no original vision of the future"

Whoever wrote that review obviously didn't even read the first ten lines of the movie.

Erm, words mate, but yes
It never ceases to irritate me that because SW gets classed as Sci-Fi (which is debatable) that people assume it's set in the future. As you pointed out, the first 10 words after the Lucasfilm logo tell you that it's not. Sorry if it's confusing and all that...

I remember a TPM review in the Dail Mail (UK Newspaper) which wasn't scathing as such, but basically belittled the whole concept of the prequels as well as the technicalities of the movie itself. The review ended with the words "And they say this is supposed to be in the future"

Who exactly? Who is this 'they'? Are they illiterate morons as well then? Frickin' idiots...

[/rant]

Gah, reviews don't mean jack anyways.

{||||| ?||} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Actually the reviews do matter, because the dumbminded folk who can't think for themselves and can't make opinions for themselves, so they just listen to the critics and take their word as gold.

 

Star Wars bashing has become a sport. The only time people listen to critics is when it has to do with Star Wars... and only when it is negative (people seem to have no problem ignoring the fact that a majority of critics LIKE the prequels).

RB