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."
Yeah. His first remark is a little harsh. His second remark is problematic and seems to be aimed at the writers. Although I have nothing against the writers, it does seem the writing and story get the bulk of the negative remarks, even in the good reviews. So, there's at least a feeling by more than a few that the writing is the movie's weakest link, relatively speaking.
I won't comment on that until I see it on Friday. But all along, my only fear has been that it's a story that's all over the place and it falls apart on itself. Some seem to think it is (even in good reviews). To be fair, it is as good a premise for a story as any previous Trek movie has had, and I had no problem with the writing in ST09. I doubt I'll walk out and ask for a refund.