Misplaced Pages

On its initial release, The Empire Strikes Back received mixed reviews compared to Star Wars' positive reception. The film appeared fourth-most on 24 critics' top-ten films of the year lists. Fan reactions were decidedly mixed, concerned by the change in tone and narrative reveals, particularly Leia's love for Han over Luke and his relationship with Vader.

Some critics believed Empire was a good film but not as enjoyable as Star Wars. They believed the tonal shift featuring darker material and more mature storylines detracted from the charm, fun, and comic silliness of the original. The Wall Street Journal's Joy Gould Boyum believed it was "absurd" to add dramatic weight to the light-hearted Star Wars, stripping it of its innocence. Writing for The Washington Post, Gary Arnold found the darker undercurrents and greater narrative scale interesting because it created more dramatic threads to explore. The New Yorker's David Denby argued it was more spectacular than the original, but lacked its camp style. The Hollywood Reporter's Arthur Knight believed the novelty of the original and plethora of space opera films produced since made Empire seem derivative; even so, he called it the best in the genre since Star Wars. Writing for Time, Gerald Clarke believed Empire surpassed Star Wars in several ways, including being more visually and artistically interesting. The New York Times's Vincent Canby described it as a more mechanical, less suspenseful experience.

Writing for the Los Angeles Times, Charles Champlin described the inconclusive ending as cleverly completing the narrative while serving as a cliffhanger, but Clarke described it as a "not very satisfying" conclusion. Canby and the Chicago Reader's Dave Kehr believed as the middle film it should have focused on narrative development instead of exposition, but found little progression between the film's beginning and end. The Washington Post's Judith Martin labeled it a "good junk" film, enjoyable but fleeting, because it lacked a stand-alone narrative. Knight and Clarke found the story sometimes difficult to follow—Knight because the third act jumped between separate storylines, and Clarke because he missed important information in the fast-paced plot. Kehr and Sight & Sound's Richard Combs wrote that characterization seemed to be less important than special effects, visual spectacle and action set pieces that accomplished little narratively.

Reviews were mixed for the central cast. Knight wrote Kershner's direction made the characters more human with fewer archetypes. Hamill, Fisher, and Ford received some praise, with Champlin describing Hamill as "youthfully innocent" and engaging and Fisher as independent. Arnold described the character progression as less development and more "finesse", with little change taking place, and Kehr felt the characters were "stiffer" without Lucas' direction. Knight described Guinness' performance as half-hearted, and Janet Maslin criticized Lando Calrissian, the only major black character in the film, as "exaggeratedly unctuous, untrustworthy and loaded with jive." The Chicago Tribune's Gene Siskel said the non-human characters, including the robots and Chewbacca, remained the most lovable creatures, with the Yoda character being the film's highlight. His realistic expressions impressed Knight, Gould Boyum, and Arnold, so much so that they believed an actor's face had been composited onto the puppet. Canby said the human cast was bland and non-descript, and even the robot characters offered diminishing enjoyment, but Yoda was a success when used sparingly.

Although Arnold praised Kershner's direction, others believed that Lucas' oversight was obvious and Empire lacked Kershner's established directorial sensibilities. Denby described his work as "impersonal" and Canby believed it was impossible to identify what work Kershner had contributed himself. Combs believed Kershner was an "ill-advised" director because he emphasized the characters, but the result was common tropes at the expense of Star Wars's comic-strip pace. Cinematographer Peter Suschitzky's work was praised for its visuals and bold color choices. The special effects were lauded as "breathtaking", "ingenious", and visually dazzling. Jim Harwood wrote they were let down only by the competence of those in the original, which were emulated by other films. Champlin appreciated the effects were used to enhance scenes instead of being the focus.

• Some reviewers noted that where Star Wars' folklore and popular culture inspirations were obvious, Empire lacked the same nostalgic references and reverence to anything but Star Wars.

• He said it offered a traditional fantasy parable of good versus evil, but also explores individual nature, self-improvement, idealism, and hard work.
• Gould Boyum continued that Yoda exemplified the tonal shift in the film, being less comical and adorable, and inspired more by mythology, religion and the works of J. R. R. Tolkien.
• The character development was also highlighted, particularly Luke's growth from naive adventurer to determined hero, and Han's portrayal as a rogue antihero bound by responsibility into heroics. Conversely, Gould Boyum believed it was "inappropriate" to try to add deeper motivations and conflicts to one-dimensional archetypes.

1. Cite error: The named reference NYTimesIndulgent was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Rinzler 2010, p. 332. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRinzler2010 (help)
3. Cite error: The named reference StarWarsComReviews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Rinzler 2010, p. 346. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRinzler2010 (help)
5. Cite error: The named reference MovieWebFans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference MashableFans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReviewCanby was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReviewTHR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. ^ Cite error: The named reference RevWSJ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. ^ Denby 1980, p. 67. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDenby1980 (help)
11. ^ Cite error: The named reference RevWaPoGaryArnold was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. Cite error: The named reference RevTimePage3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
13. ^ Cite error: The named reference RevLaTimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. ^ Cite error: The named reference RevTimePage5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
15. ^ Cite error: The named reference RevDaveKehr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
16. Cite error: The named reference ReviewWAPOMartin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
17. ^ Cite error: The named reference RevSightandSound was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
18. ^ Cite error: The named reference RevVariety was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
19. Cite error: The named reference RevMaslin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
20. Cite error: The named reference ReviewSiskel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).