<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; font-family: sans-serif; "><p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Boy, were they you wrong. Just a "few negative responses" and "largely positive critical reception." </p><p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">
</p><p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">I don't trust opinion of one critic, but I'll accept an average of hundreds of responses, like Rotten Tomatoes provides.</p><p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">
</p><p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">The film received a largely positive critical reception. In his 1977 review,
Roger Ebertcalled the film "an out-of-body experience", compared its special effects to those of
2001: A Space Odyssey, and opined that the true strength of the film was its "pure narrative".<sup id="cite_ref-67" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">
<span>[</span>67<span>]</span>Vincent Canbycalled the film "the movie that's going to entertain a lot of contemporary folk who have a soft spot for the virtually ritualized manners of comic-book adventure".<sup id="cite_ref-68" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">
<span>[</span>68<span>]</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">However, there were a few negative responses.
Pauline Kaelof
The New Yorkercriticized the film, stating that "there's no breather in the picture, no lyricism", and that it had no "emotional grip".<sup id="cite_ref-69" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">
<span>[</span>69<span>]</span>Jonathan Rosenbaumof the
Chicago Readerstated, "None of these characters has any depth, and they're all treated like the fanciful props and settings."<sup id="cite_ref-70" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">
<span>[</span>70<span>]</span>Peter Keough of the
Boston Phoenixsaid "
Star Warsis a junkyard of cinematic gimcracks not unlike the
Jawas' heap of purloined, discarded, barely functioning droids."<sup id="cite_ref-71" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">
<span>[</span>71<span>]</span>Stanley Kauffmann of
The New Republicalso responded negatively, noting "His [Lucas's] work here seems less inventive than in
THX 1138."<sup id="cite_ref-Rotten_72-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">
<span>[</span>72<span>]</span>According to review aggregator
Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of 66 reviews assessed are favorable, with an average rating of 8.2/10, stating in summary: "A legendarily expansive and ambitious start to the sci-fi saga, George Lucas opened our eyes to the possiblites of blockbuster filmmaking and things have never been the same."<sup id="cite_ref-Rotten_72-1" class="reference" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">
<span>[</span>72<span>]</span></p></span>