Personally, I think that's about the right way to rate Star Trek (2009). My caveat there is that I rate most Trek films worse than that! Consequently, the 2009 film is in my top three Trek films.
Clearly, however, some critics thought it was better.
Then what part of Trek are you really enthused about?
TOS and TNG, for the most part.
The films have been disappointing overall, right out of the gate.
I was really let down by TMP. It didn't reflect the best elements of TOS at all.
I really enjoyed TWOK. However, while TWOK brought character development of Kirk and Spock to the fore, more effectively than TMP did, there were many other (less important) aspects of TWOK that were completely incongruous with TOS, and not in a good way.
Swerving back towards being on topic, I think jayceee
is right that GEN set the TNG part of the movie franchise off on a rocky start. I was certainly underwhelmed by it; it wasn't really that much of an improvement over TUC, which is really faint praise.
FC was certainly a significant step up, but there was a lot that I hated about it. I could let the reimagining of Zefram Cochrane slide, but revisiting the sort of sloppy time travel tropes that populated TVH—but without the redeeming element of an overall tone of light-hearted comedy—was really irritating to me. Nevertheless, FC is the zenith of the TNG part of the film franchise, as far as I'm concerned.