Visually stunning but convoluted; not academy-award worthy, but worth a watch

Rating: 7/10 (4 January 2008)

No rhymes, no embellishments, no adjectives... just kidding...
This film is a chick flick, which I insist is not a pejorative. That is not surprising, but it is one of the reasons I didn't adore this film. It is suffused with the kind of hopeless romanticism that I find, unfortunately, incredible. Some reasons why the kind of 'love' displayed is plausible in this case: the impending great war, the ww1 environment, human nature's tendency to translate desire into love. Still, it will always be a mystery why people rationalize, or should I say excuse, sex with love? It's not necessary, nor is it realistic. It is however a fixture of the dramatic, romantic chick flick. Apparently, people find it beautiful. Nicely portrayed in this film, but not necessarily appreciated.
Frankly, the most beautiful thing in this movie - no, not Keira Knightly's sprightly, elfin body - is its photography. The cinematography is excellent. Varied, unorthodox, meticulous, it is delightful and masterful. The scenes of war and Dunkirk are particularly haunting.
Additionally, the pacing and sequence of the film are stupendous... stupendous. They are inventive and interesting. Unfortunately, there is some amount of repetition, or should I say redundancy. The film could have been pared down. At 123 minutes, it is not excessively long, but for what was presented, it is a bit overdone and over-complicated. Additionally, it could have benefited from more characterization. The dialogue is smart and tight, but slightly sparse, especially for the minor characters.
The story, of course, is one we have heard before. It is cherished, and treated wonderfully in this presentation. Acting is very fine, though I will never really fall for the histrionics of the semi-human Knightly. All in all, a very nice and even slightly philosophical and provocative movie. Who would have thought a chick flick could be so ambitious?