Rollingstone.com has some reviews archived. Highlights from Dave Marsh's 1979 review of "Jazz":

There's no Jazz on Queen's new record, in case fans of either were worried about the defilement of an icon. Queen hasn't the imagination to jazz — Queen hasn't the imagination, for that matter, to play rock & roll.

Marsh criticizes Queen for uninspired and uninteresting retreads of their four-part harmony schtick; he lambasts them for their arrogance. Marsh can barely contain his genuine contempt for Queen and their music; the last two paragraphs of this review really sell this:

But it's easy to ascribe too much ambition to Queen. "Fat Bottomed Girls" isn't sexist — it regards women not as sex objects but as objects, period (the way the band regards people in general). When Mercury chants, in "Let Me Entertain You," about selling his body and his willingness to use any device to thrill an audience, he isn't talking about a sacrifice for his art. He's just confessing his shamelessness, mostly because he's too much of a boor to feel stupid about it.

Whatever its claims, Queen isn't here just to entertain. This group has come to make it clear exactly who is superior and who is inferior. Its anthem, "We Will Rock You," is a marching order: you will not rock us, we will rock you. Indeed, Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band. The whole thing makes me wonder why anyone would indulge these creeps and their polluting ideas.

"A Day At the Races" pulled a 2/5 review from Marsh in 1977.

A Day at the Races is probably meant to be the sequel to Queen's 1976 smash, A Night at the Opera, but nothing much has changed. Queen is the least experimental of such groups, probably because their commercial aspirations are the most brazen. They have managed to borrow all that's frothiest from their influences, from the fake-orgasmic vocal contortions of Robert Plant to the semi-vaudevillian pop of the Beach Boys and Beatles. In addition, to cement their "seriousness," they use instrumental effects which hint at opera in the same way that bad movie music palely evokes the symphony. Blessed with Freddie Mercury's passable pop voice and guitarist Brian May, who manages to fragment and reassemble the guitar styles of Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton in interesting, if pedestrian, ways, Queen will probably top the charts until one or the other of its leaders grows restless and spins off another version.

Marsh is a particularly acerbic critic. Elsewhere we see more positive reviews. Gordon Fletcher, reviewing the groups' debut in 1973:

There's no doubt that this funky, energetic English quartet has all the tools they'll need to lay claim to the Zep's abdicated heavy-metal throne, and beyond that to become a truly influential force in the rock world. Their debut album is superb.

Bud Scoppa gave "Sheer Heart Attack" three stars in 1975, citing much of what Marsh hated about the band as positives.

The truth of rock and roll criticism, then and now, is that critics are not united on almost anything. Queen was polarizing then for the same reason Kanye West is polarizing today; perceived egomania, pretension, great production value with a clear market vision that is appealing to some and appalling to others.

Sources: all reviews quoted are from the Rollingstone.com archive.