Venting Spleen

Some reviewers see "Revenge of the Sith" as poorly-scripted, badly-acted juvenile pap with so-so special effects...   And those are some of the better reviews from the sane folks who've seen it.  But what did you expect?  It's a last gasp of a series, and it's not as though the Star Wars movie franchise has consistently improved with age, anyway. Here's a sample of commentary rounded up by Glenn Reynolds.   Oh, and Tyler Cowan, of Marginal Revolution, has a few pertinent observations about the Star Wars fictio-verse. (Yeah, Tyler! heh)   [OUCH! Update: Anthony Lane, writing in The New Yorker ( 2005-05-16) is just a wee tad vicious:   The general opinion of “Revenge of the Sith” seems to be that it marks a distinct improvement on the last two episodes, “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones.” True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion. Lighten up, man.  It's just a movie! h.t. "Dave" commenting at Ann Althouse's blog]   Ahhh, I know some Star Wars fans (one in my own home) who'll probably roast me alive for this post.  So?  I'll see it when it comes out on DVD. Either as a rental or... mooching a watch off the Star Wars fan in the family.   OTOH, reading some of the reviews has me in the mood for something a little camp, competently scriipted and acted, maybe a wee tad B-movie-ish.   hmmm...       Doc Savage: Man of Bronze, anyone?       :-)