Well, I've seen it three times now.
I guess after reading all these comments I have few things to say, but PTA's mention of Raoul Walsh as a "nuts & bolts director" and influence here really starts to make sense after the second viewing. This film goes very directly from one thing to the next, every scene as a consequence of the last. There's almost no wasted time, no contextualization, no introductions, just the action, the moment taking place. You're there in the moment with Freddie, particularly during the first 15 minutes or so, when everything happens so fast and you start realizing it's all about him, it's all about how he's walking directly into the Cause. But after Lancaster and Freddie meet, this continues. I think that by using elipsis in this way PTA is somehow rediscovering narrative cinema for us. He is going the opposite of what "contemplative cinema" does, and at the same time he's distancing himself of all the "narrative fat" most films have. It really is a "nuts & bolts", very direct film. It may be just too direct for audiences to follow completely, which would explain why people think is pointless. They can't keep up with it's rhythm.