I think the A.O. Scott review in The New York Times
is the first I've read good or bad that takes be aback. He's a very respected reviewer, but one wonders if even this review is bad just because it's not the kind of movie he wanted to see. I think he's too professional to do that, but there are elements of it in the review, especially his dislike of the militarization of Starfleet and that he wishes the movie had the "wit and sincerity" of the old series (again romaticizing the past).
His "rotten" reviews at Rotten Tomatoes start at 2.5 of 5 stars. He thinks STID is that bad? Anyway, this one surprised me kind of like the Roger Ebert review of ST09 did.
"It’s uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement. "
I thought they were significantly reduced. Were they in 98% of the shots for ST:09?
" “Star Trek Into Darkness” does not quite stand by itself as a satisfying movie, but then again it doesn’t need to. It is the leg of a journey that has, remarkably, lasted for nearly half a century. I hope we never tire of Kirk, Spock and the others. I also hope that they stick around long enough to find a new civilization, since the one we have now does not fully appreciate their gifts."