Pro U.S. Propaganda.

I agree with you. Check out the facts on Frontline "Politics of torture." Keep spreading the truth. I am ashamed that we allowed torture and believed the lies of the war criminals Cheney and BushCo.

There may be falsehoods and inaccuracies in the narrative shown in the movie. But what is undeniable is that the US got Bin Laden, who was hiding in Pakistan.

Someday, someone should make another movie about the US duplicity and dishonesty in shielding Pakistan from massive international censure and sanction. All along, the US was chanting "Afghanistan", as if that was the only problem. But the real problem lies in Pakistan, which is the giver of sanctuary, trainer and armer of terrorists. And in Saudi Arabia which is the ideological fountainhead and massive fund giver to Islamic terrorists. Unless the US is willing to take action against these two crooked, slimey countries, it will not strike a serious blow to Islamists and Islamic terror. The actions will be cosmetic or half hearted.

all of the information about the process of finding Bin Laden has not been released, so it's possible she as a character does not actually exist, and she was simply a vessel to tell an engaging narrative from. Since you are probably right that no one person had that much control over finding Bin Laden, the film would have to focus on way too many people, so instead who they simply amalgamated everyone into the protagonist.

It is a somewhat wretched and not slightly disturbing story of the search for a terrorist, and the cost paid in lives used, lives spent, lives destroyed, and lives wasted. It forces the viewer to decide for themselves whether, in the end, this cost was justified. For this it has been branded as Pro-America, Anti-America, Pro-War, Anti-War, Pro-torture, Anti-torture, invariably all over the same issue (depiction of torture). In almost every case the accuser was a film critic, not a political historian.

Due to the necessary constraints of the traditional Hollywood timeslot the film has been branded as derivative, overly expansive, overly-detailed, not detailed enough, seditiously overaccurate, or just plain wrong; the director has been characterized as fascist on one side, as communist on the other; in almost every case the accuser(s) had no idea what they were talking about.

We know certain things: there was this guy named Osama Bin Laden, he was a bad guy, and now he's almost certainly very dead (or in a safehouse in Omaha raising anteaters, in which case he was One Of Ours from the start, so, no worries there). We know there was a fortified mansion in Abbottabad, and we know the Americans left some very odd bits of hardware there one night- the same night that the Bin Laden guy was said to have been killed (or taken to Omaha). The Pakistani government was either played for patsies, fools, or were willing participants in some kind of raid... either way it works out pretty well for them, given the complex politics of the region (so, no worries, there).
All in all everything got wrapped up in a neat little bundle- reassuring for those who believe in neat bundles, and fodder for the conspiracy theorists. In other words, everybody's happy... aren't they?

I would say the film got one of those versions more or less right, within the constraints of the Traditional Hollywood Timeslot. So the old adage is correct: You can't please everybody.

[deleted]

Yes, totaly agree!