ROTS won my "Most Disappointing Film of 2005" "award," because of how many rave reviews it had gotten from the SW fanboys. I liked the trailers, anyway.
Some spoilers follow.
I might've liked the film itself if it hadn't had those five second pauses between every badly-acted, badly written line of cheezoid dialogue. Or if the plot had been at all decent. Or the direction. Or the characters. Or anything except the visuals and action, really.
I don't know how people can say that it's much better than the other prequels--it still has practically all the same flaws, even with practically no Jar Jar this time.
I also don't quite get how people can say that ROTS kicked ass while the Matrix Revolutions totally sucks. I mean...they're the same damn movie. No, really! They are! Let's face it: both have their roots in a futuristic classic of some sort (the original SW trilogy and the first Matrix); they both have some of the best fight scenes ever on film; both have some of the coolest visuals ever on film; in both,everything else totally sucks; both are boring as HELL whenever people aren't fighting each other; in both, the only at-all decent performance is that of the villain (in ROTS, Palpatine; in Revolutions, Agent Smith); both have the girl dying at the end in a scene that should be more powerful than it is (I actually found Trin's death quite touching (certainly moreso than Padme's death), but everyone else hated that scene); both have an actor who's in the "mentor" role who usually is a decent actor but isn't here (Ewan McGreggor can be pretty good sometimes, but in ROTS he totally sucked as Obi Wan, and the same could be said for Lawrence Fishbourne as Morpheus in Revolutions); both are disappointing overall but still overrated by their overly-forgiving fanboys; both have plot holes the size of China's population; etc. etc. etc. The point is, they're basically the same sad, flawed film.