Lucas not redeemed.

Rating: 6/10 (23 May 2005)

I recognize that it's hard for me to be objective with the prequel episodes of Star Wars--I grew up with Episodes 4, 5, and 6, and they are the bar at which the new movies are compared. I realize that this bias is not entirely fair, but it's the way it is. Sequels are held to a different standard, because they are built upon earlier work, and they have an obligation to that material.
With this in mind, I will quickly agree with most of the current reviews that Revenge of the Sith is the best of the prequels. It's darker, it has a more relevant story, and it actually evokes some real emotion, beyond the rush of hearing the opening score.
Unfortunately, I don't see the present IMDb rating of 8.2, nor the heaps of praise for George Lucas, supposedly redeemed of his earlier transgressions with the franchise. Revenge of the Sith is still hobbled by weak-ass dialogue, sub-par CGI, and questionable plot structure. It does have some great moments, but it is far from a great movie.
The way I see it, if you're going to spend three movies chronicling the downfall of a pivotal character, make the final transformation CONVINCING beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think this movie fails in that regard, with Lucas once again spending more time on chase scenes and secondary lightsabre duels than on actual drama and character development.
Revenge of the Sith is okay. It's better than Phantom Menace, it's better than Attack of the Clones, but it doesn't have the weight or depth of the first trilogy, and I don't think anyone should suggest it's in the same ball park. Just because the story is "bringing balance" to the trilogies it doesn't make it good--it just brings it closer to the original material.