Better than the previous two....how?

Rating: 2/10 (3 July 2005)

The refrain we've heard from every review of this movie is that at least it's better than Episodes I and II. Uh, how exactly is it better? Like I and II, this one suffers from cringe-worthy dialog (I was especially embarrassed for James Earl Jones during his few lines), wooden acting, uneven pacing, and nonsensical plot elements. In addition, because we know almost every detail of what's going to happen to every character, there isn't even the tiniest element of surprise in plot direction that we might have had in the first two prequels.
Given the resources, and the genuine greatness of Empire Strikes Back, it boggles the mind that Lucas and his team could have made three movies as bad as I, II, and III. What I've said about the first two applies even more to Revenge of the Sith: This is the kind of movie Ed Wood would have made if he had an unlimited budget.