Meh. The Clone Wars cartoons of a few years ago did a good enough job filling the gap. This is totally unneeded or called for, so I say meh.

Well, I for one didn't think the acting was stiff in the prequels, and certainly not by Hayden Christiansen.
I do think the story wasn't up to par --- I think it tried to cover too much story with only three films.

hayden christiansen should have won the oscar for all three star wars prequels. what phenomenal performances.

You guys are kidding, right? Hayden Christianson was HORRIBLE in the prequels, particularly the last. Blech. Wooden, awful performances. Two thumbs down.

how could hayden christensen (not christiansen) win the oscar for "all three star wars prequels" when he wasn't even in the first one ('the phantom menace'). it was jake lloyd who sucked in the first prequel. otherwise, hayden sucked himself big time in the other two prequels, although george lucas pretty much drove the franchise into the ground with his awful writing and directing.

goes a long way to gaining some credibility Jeff. Lucas was more than peripherally involved, for example insisting on the arguably offensive voice affectation of one on the new characters. Also, there is no Rebel Alliance vs. Imperial Forces in this movie, its seperatists vs The Republic (not a spoiler because of the 3 "prequels"). Thanks for playing... unfortunately there is no play at home game.

Anyone else notice the terms "Imperials" and "Rebel Alliance" used in the place of "Separatist" and "Republic" respectively? The Rebel Alliance and the Empire did not exist at the time frame this take place in. Have you even watched Star Wars?

I caught the "Imperials" and "Rebel Alliance" flubs as well. Makes me wonder if this reviewer has actually seen the movie . . .

I don't expect him to be fluent in the SW canon, but if he can't even place this in the correct trilogy . . . no wonder he didn't enjoy the movie. I'm guessing his disappointment at the end at not seeing Han Solo probably tainted his review.

Tony Toscano said that the movie exceeded his (originally very low) expectations and gave it a B. He said it was worth seeing and taking the kids to--as an alternative to the horrible fly to the moon movie.

Yes, Jeff Vice has seen all of the "Star Wars" films. (You can find his reviews of the "Star Wars" prequels by searching the Deseret News website. And you can find a column by Jeff Vice about the release of the classic trilogy on DVD as well.) I am sure that the terms "Imperials" and "Rebel Alliance" are typographical errors. And while Jeff Vice didn't realize just how much input George Lucas had on "The Clone Wars", he is quite correct in saying that the animation was originally designed for tv. In spite of those two errors (i.e., the terminology and being mistaken about the level of Lucas' involvement), his final recommendation of 2 stars is based on what he perceives are the film's flaws - namely the fact that the tv-style animation doesn't translate to film well and that the plot and dialogue could have been better. Incidentally, in spite of his review, I still plan to see the film.

"Imperials" and "rebel Alliance" are hardly "typographical errors." They are either errors of sloppiness or evidence that Jeff isn't very Star Wars-savvy. I do hope he bothered to watch the movie before writing the review.

It doesn't matter if you call them "separatists" or "rebel alliance", it doesn't change the fact that George Lucas has ruined a beloved classic trilogy in his untalented drive for more money.

Boring. Terrible Dialogue. Atrocious Voice Acting. This movie adds insult to the injury of the prequel trilogy. Not even worth renting. 1 star only because the animation is good. I knew something was wrong from the first minute when the power puff girls narration started. If I ate a bunch of cartoon network dvds, washed it down with a couple of neon pink and blue glowsticks, lobotomized myself, and vomited onto a film reel the result would be this movie.

I am a bit surprised Mr. Vice messed up the terminology, given his professed love for comic book films. I'm not saying the six Star Wars films are such, but they are closely related. His opinion cannot--as a whole--be dismissed on such an error, but it does make you wonder how much attention he really paid to the story.

I have to say, much of Star Wars disappoints after even Episode V; that's 1980, folks! Overall, it's fun if you're willing to overlook at lot. I'll still see the movie, but at the dollar theater or at home. I can't see how a movie based on a TV series will look much better on the big screen, making it hardly worth the $8 ticket.

Where are Duck Dodgers in the 24th-and-a-Half Century and Marvin the Martian? This is a Warner Bros. film after all. Their absence makes me so angry.

Probably a more spot on review than Jeff Vice's

He hasn't ruined anything. You are completely free to ignore everything he has done post-1983. You can pretend he never did any of it! Freedom of choice-- it's a beautiful thing.

Interestingly, "Revenge of the Sith" was quite well received by the critics-- better received than "Return of the Jedi." Many people--including myself-- think Sith ranks as one of the best of the series.

"Terrible Dialogue [sic]"? "Atrocious Voice Acting [sic]"? What did you think you were going to see? The Shawshank redemption? "Clone Wars" is a cartoon for kids. Sheesh!

You were free to walk out at anytime. Why didn't you?

You can make a smart, enjoyable and engaging "cartoon for kids." Pixar does it almost every year, and Batman: The Animated Series from the early 90s has some of the best plot, writing, and voice acting I've ever seen.

I cringed when I saw "Rebel Alliance" and "Imperials" appear in this review. Jeff, you should know better. The other participants in the Geek Show podcast should vote you out of the club.

Yes, but this was basically produced for the small screen. This was not intended to be on the level of a Pixar production. If you want to see a Pixar-quality production, go see a Pixar production. Don't act like George Lucas is ruining your life. He isn't.