i dont have the same opinion on the 2012 version (oh yeah, because i totally am going to bring in the 1995 version too), i think it's properly rated, with some few who like it more than they should.
The reason is that the film is really limited in scope.
1. the setup of the characters; Dredd will conflict with the rookie Anderson, on her mission to get her wings.
They will bust into a building and take down a group of drug-dealing criminals.
First point, is Dredd isn't the protagonist here, Anderson is. Or isn't , the same way that the couple Reese/Connor are not the protagonists of The Terminator.
2. they bust into the building and start a prolonged firefight, and while Anderson tries to paint a scene of being in a tight spot, at risk, IN DANGER, on the other hand Dredd is comically overpowered and nonchalantly destroys everything in his path.
Now, this wouldn't be toooo bad, because the original Dredd character was a comical caricature of an obtuse, stupid, fascist policeman, and would totally work as an over-the-top cringe comedy. Karl Urban isn't bad as Dredd (while Stallone is MAGNIFICENT), but the film lacks the comedy content that in the 1995 film comes from campy exageration and excess.
3. they encounter no real hindrances and progress to the top floor where they just shoot a girl and the movie is over.
Anderson has a baby-sized character arc, Dredd is pleased (to the point of ignoring her law-breaking) and gives her wings.
Eh ... it's okaish.
I mean, the 1995 film is absolutely atrocious, but it succeeds in giving us a few brief laughs that are in the correct tone for the Dredd universe. The 2012 film tries to do its own things, and it comes across as a mediocre buddy cop film, i'm surprised they didnt think of starring Denzel Washington as Dredd. Just because they did everything else well, it doesn't mean the film actually has quality.
6/10 - 2012 version
6/10 - 1995 version
They both have qualities, they both have faults.
I know which one i would pick for costumes, though.