Trek as a whole brings the philosophical depth, but not the movie. That is what I am referring to. Your love of this movie has an irrational basis in the sense that you are not viewing it in an objective way that fits into the spirit you stated (which was spot-on, btw), but in which the good foundation of Trek excuses the failings of the movie. That is not rational and is a lapse in logic.
I'm curious... does this cover more than the person you're quoting? It just seems to be quite the attempt to be patronising, with some lazy writing causing some major plot holes.
But the performance was spot on.