The other two were so miserable I don't think it will be possible for me to see the new one.

I haven't seen it, but my friend told me she really enjoyed it (expect for the poor attempts at romance).

I have a secret.

When Episode I came out I thought it was the best Star Wars episode ever. I loved Jar-Jar Binks (he talks so funny and he makes me laugh and smile!) Then everyone started talking about how awful the movie was, and worse, how they hated poor Jar-Jar (he is so cute!) I had no choice but to keep my feelings a secret.

I think Jar-Jar Binks is really not much more annoying than Luke Skywalker. Maybe only because he has less dialogue.

"Aw, do I have to? But I wanted to go down to Tashi Station to look at the new power converters."

I'll give you a power conversion, boy.

I thought Jar-Jar Binks was the least annoying part of the movie.

We went and saw Star Wars last night. Overall I was pleased with the movie. Better than Eps I & II, not as good as IV-VI.

The Good:

In the most general sense, it was great just to see the last piece of the story put into place. I think the film did an excellent job in creating a transition to Eps IV. It made me excited about going back and watching the original 3 again.

Ewan McGregor was excellent. I feel like his talent carried Hayden Christensen through many of the scenes.

Yoda kicked ass.

R2D2.

Lightsaber battles galore.

The Bad:

Hayden Christensen sucks. Whoever cast him as Anakin should lose their job. The dialog in the love story was pitiful and felt completely unnatural. You need the love story in there, but those two just could not pull it off. It hurt to watch.

Too much CG. The entire film was shot in a studio and it showed. I don't know why Lucas insists on everything being CG. While I understand that it allows him to fully explore his ideas for each scene, it often led to poor character/environment interaction and many times the action was way over the top. There were battles in the film that were epic in their own right (Anakin vs. Obi Wan for example) that did not need an overly dramatic CG backdrop. Just let them duke it out! And give me some humans dressed in Wookie suits for Gods sake.

The Fox affiliate here was showing the original trilogy last weekend, and I thought it looked a lot more realistic/palatable than that CG stuff. Whenever I see CG, I wonder, "How can it look so bad and yet cost so much money?" I guess I can see how it allows more flexability or whatnot, but it just doesn't cut it for me. And I'm more than willing to suspend my disbelief.

Even though I didn't much like episodes I and II I am a huge fan of the originals. I loved episode III. i thought lucas redeemed himself. I felt it was worth the name Star Wars. But, i am a dork, so go figure.

I've gotta say, I disagree with Ryan's assesment of Hayden's acting. He sucked in AOTC, but was, imho quite good in this. The dialogue wasn't great, but that should be blamed on Lucas. In fact there were only two really well done performances in the original trilogy until the end of Empire, Han Solo and Yoda. It wasn't until the last chapter that the characters really hit their stride. I would submit that Luke sucked ass, acting wise, until the end of Empire. That is Lucas' writing, not the actors.

There is no more action packed episode than Revenge of the Sith. Were there times I cringed? Oh yeah. I HATED the prolonged "NOOOOOOOOOOOO" at the end. I also thought Padme naming her children was strange.

The coolest thing is that we find out Vader was born of love not hate. He wanted to save Padme from the death he believed to be, justifiably, emminent.

All things considered though, this is the best Star Wars since Empire. I'm still not sure whether I would take the heretical view that ROTS is the superior film. I need to see it a second time.

BTW, did the "noooooooooooooooo" remind anyone of 'A Streetcar Named Desire'. It sounded almost too much like "Stellaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" or any other "noooooooooooo" in the history of cinema.
Tennessee Williams is breakdancing in his grave.

Imminent. Sorry. I suck.

I suppose my post had more criticisms than accolades. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a very good movie.

You might be right about the writing, especially in the love scenes. It was composed of a bunch of fragmented sentences that just did not form any sort of normal dialog. Natalie Portman is generally a decent actress, but even she sucked in those scenes. However, in the scenes with Ewan McGregor she seemed much more believable as a character (as did Hayden Christensen).

Is it just me or does Yoda use the dark side when he is in a pinch? I think he taps into his anger for just a tiny bit when he needs that extra bit of power.

cg is often bad. and the cg in star wars is worse.

I did not see it once dressed as Anakin and once dressed as Darth, but I saw it opening night and am going to see it again on a digital projector this weekend. Yes, I am that much of a dork. I want to do side by side comparisons of Star Wars on film and on hard drive. I'll post what I think.

Overall, though, I loved III. I thought that it is better than VI. I, too, found Padme naming odd. I basically cringed in every scene Natalie Portman was in. My opinion was that the failure wasn’t screen writing or acting, but direction and vision. She’s this hard-core senator that wed secretly. She’s not going to just stand around and cry. At the very least she’d stand around and look angry.