And these are particularly important
negative reviews because -- ?
There's a saying The Washington Post
uses here to sell newspapers (their critic loved
STID, by the way): If you don't get it, you don't get it. These reviews don't get it. STID is no different than the intelligently done but still sometimes campy TOS. The story is as deep as almost any TOS episode and prior movies. Marc Cushman is quoted as saying, "It's lost a lot of its reality." Reality? Huh? Explanation, please.
The NY Post
review says that "surplus action and lack of creative commentary" is the biggest sticking point to purists. Not this purist. There are valid negative reviews out there, but any like NY Post's
that hold Abrams's movies to a standard that is mythical to being with, well they just don't get it. Besides, who the hell walks out of a summer movie saying, "I wish there would've been less action and more sitting around conference tables discussing issues"?