Everything I have to say about Star Wars 3 (6) [Revenge of the Sith]: It had all of the problems of the other two: goofy interpersonal relationships, leaden dialogue, weird pacing, among others, but, unlike them, it did not introduce any new problems of its own. And if that sounds like powerfully faint praise, it is, but I went in with greatly lowered expectations and was not disappointed.

But is there anything that makes this one better than its predecessors, as opposed to merely not worse? I think there is: there's some actual menace, and a feeling that something important is at stake, both of which were absent from the others. (And is it clear when I say "others" and "predecessors" that I'm talking about The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones? And that my failure to include the original films is based not so much on a belief that they're so superior to the prequels, but comes from me not having watched them in several years? Not to mention that I wouldn't know where to begin in a critical analysis of films I first saw at age three. So anyway this hypothetical you I'm addressing probably shouldn't listen to me.)