A. O. Scott in The New York Times more or less takes a lightsaber to his credibility and claims that Revenge of the Sith is better than the original Star Wars. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm fairly certain there's not a single possible universe in which that is the case.

Reading the review, it's plain that even Scott doesn't believe it. Not really.

When you're done there, wash the bad taste out of your mouth with these Salon.com anti-Lucas classics: George Lucas, Galactic Gasbag, which details Lucas's "debt" to other, less well-known scifi writers, and David Brin's immortal question: 'Star Wars' Despots vs. 'Star Trek' Populists: Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun? Here's a quote from the latter:

Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?

Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.

"Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.

Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.

True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.

Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

That is just the beginning of a long list of "moral" lessons relentlessly pushed by "Star Wars."

Brin's got more. Much, more more.