The NY Daily News features this critical look at Star Wars, and how we're doing nothing but encouraging him:

But it seems clear that George Lucas is not going to be disabused of the notion that he's a great filmmaker and that his more-(digital)-is-better philosophy is the future of movies if he keeps making fortunes from these vacuous cartoons.

In interviews for "Clones," he has defended its predecessor in this series, the abysmal "Phantom Menace," on the grounds that it was the most profitable of all the five "Star Wars" episodes.

"Attack of the Clones" (a title that could apply to the whole series) opened on Thursday and set a record for that day. But with $86.2 million for the three days that followed, it fell more than $28 million short of matching the three-day weekend record of $114.4 million set earlier this month by "Spider-Man."

"Clones" will make up than that difference and more over the four-day Memorial Day Weekend, and though "Spider-Man" has taken in $286.5 million compared to the $116.3 million cumulative total for "Clones," they could be neck-and-neck in two or three weeks.

Now think of that. A good movie and a bad movie going neck and neck.

You can be an optimist and say, "Wow, a good movie has been made and people are going to see it," or, you can be the pessimist, and say, "Lucas couldn't make a money-losing 'Star Wars' movie if he tried, and tried again."

I don't understand the handful of rave reviews "Clones" has received. The critic in every case acknowledged the wooden performances of Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman, and the stilted dialogue written for them.

And you've got to love his comparison to figure skating at the end of the article as well.