DirkH’s review published on Letterboxd:
I feel deeply conflicted by this film. While I admire its scope I have great difficulties with the way it presents it, both in content and in cinematic quality.
Let me start by saying that Bigelow should earn nothing but respect for taking on such an ambitious project. I am not a big fan of hers as a director (and she betrays here weaknesses here as well), but I always admire artists who dare to push the boat out a bit further than the rest or take on a challenge with both hands.
Chronicling a decade long man-hunt for the world's public enemy number one is no small task. Mark Boal's script comes across as fastidiously researched, giving us a unique insight into what goes on during such an enormous operation. We can, of course, never be entirely sure that what we are seeing actually happened, but considering that we are dealing with a closed operation and that most procedures have been well documented and even investigated, it feels like an authentic representation of the string of events that lead to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Now, here is where it starts to get difficult for me. What am I watching? A meticulously crafted reconstruction or a dramatized interpretation of a real event? It feels as if Bigelow couldn't decide which film she wanted to make.
If it is a dramatized interpretation there is one huge flaw here. As much as I worship the ground that Jessica Chastain walks on, I found her character to be absolutely and completely annoying. If there is one thing I can't stand in a story arc it is a flat character. Maya is one thing, a tough bitch that seems to have no redeemable qualities whatsoever. Is this the protagonist I am supposed to invest in? She is a one-note character that is given, at points, the most ridiculous lines that come across as overcompensating rather than empowering. Practically all other characters feel like cardboard cut-outs of 'real' people that only exist on the movies. Dramatization does not mean simplification. Another thing is that the start of the narrative feels like a poor choice. We are thrust into it, having to accept the characters the way they are. That doesn't necessarily have to be a problem, but if that's all we're getting it sort of feels like joining in a marathon in the last mile or so, looking around wondering why everyone looks so tired. Again, it detracts from my willingness to invest in the story's protagonists.
If this is a reconstruction, it certainly succeeds in providing us with details and a clear chronological string of events. It is also very distant, it doesn't illicit an emotional response from me as it seems intent on being as detailed as possible. The film starts with an unflinching look at how terrorist suspects were tortured. It doesn't seem to pass judgement on that and if this were an objective account that would be the best way to go about it. And here its conflictive nature rears its ugly head again. It isn't objective. My biggest problem in that respect lies in the opening of this film. It starts with phone calls made during the 9/11 attacks. When the end credits were rolling, that was the first thing that popped into my head. Why? Why play those absolutely horrific tapes? I am sorry, but this feels like the cheapest form of manipulation to me. I don't need to be reminded that way of the horrific events that transpired there, thank you very much. They felt completely out of place. Or did it perhaps have another function? Does it in fact serve as a 'get out of jail free' card for the dubious things we get to see later on? I honestly don't know, all I know is that it felt wrong somehow.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this film is advocating the violation of human rights, but the subversiveness of some elements did bother me. Had this film clearly decided what it wanted to be, it would have been the better for it.
Judging this film purely on its film making qualities it is ok. I really don't think it is a film that stands out in any department in particular, save the fact that the only inconsistent factor seems to be Bigelow herself. She just doesn't seem to know how to pace her films. This one is exemplary of that. The opening hour (despite my objections about the content) are very well shot and engaging, followed by a very weak and rather boring second hour only to conclude with a riveting and superbly shot finale. I guess, summing it up like that, two and a half hours seems, ironically enough, too much to chronicle ten years of investigation, at least in the way it was done here.
I was really hoping to be blown away by this, but I'm afraid its conflictive and indecisive nature rubbed off on me and left me dangling somewhere in the middle.