Well I didn't like it, Nick. Too contrived, and the inaccuracies got to me.
I went because of McEwan's reputation for writing literature based on literal accuracy achieved through thorough research. See:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/...957845,00.html .
In McEwan's words;
"The writer of a historical novel may resent his dependence on the written record, on memoirs and eyewitness accounts, in other words on other writers, but there is no escape: Dunkirk or a wartime hospital can be novelistically realised, but they cannot be re-invented. I was particularly fascinated by the telling detail, or the visually rich episode that projected unspoken emotion. In the Dunkirk histories I found an account of a French cavalry officer walking down a line of horses, shooting each one in turn through the head. The idea was to prevent anything useful falling into the hands of the advancing Germans. Strangely, and for exactly the same reason, near Dunkirk beach, a padre helped by a few soldiers burned a pile of King James bibles. I included my father's story of the near-lynching of an RAF clerk, blamed by furious soldiers for the lack of air support during the retreat. Though I placed my imagined characters in front of these scenes, it was enormously important to me that they actually happened."
"As with the Dunkirk section, I drew on the scenes she (Lucilla Andrews) described. Again, it was important to me that these events actually occurred."
The Lancaster was not seen until two years after the main characters were dead in 1942. British infantrymen throughout WWII were in love with their boots and their rifles; none would be seen dead without them. They also stood up when the National Anthem was played. These are facts.
Everybody has their pet hated anachronism; I just read about someone who looks out for steel helmets worn before 1916.
Knightley and McAvoy affected the clipped tones of the period. The film tried hard. The anachronisms were inexcusable.
Tony