Zero Dark Thirty is a procedural CIA-based thriller in the mould of TV's Homeland. This film, however, is based on real-life events, so it doesn't have the benefit of being able to withhold in the way Homeland's first series did with Twin Peaks-like delectation. What Zero Dark Thirty does have is a narrative based on first-hand accounts, and it makes no explicit judgement about the content of those accounts. We simply get to see what (apparently) happened during the manhunt for "UBJ".

The film's lack of polemic is both a blessing a curse. It's a blessing because it's rare that a film dealing with such volatile subject matter is depicted procedurally. Usually when a narrative is made ostensibly apolitical it's as a result of an unconvincing moral rebalancing, where the filmmakers go to great lengths to present both sides fairly. But Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow's disinterest is also a curse because, in avoiding judgement, it surreptitiously falls firmly on the side of the CIA. It shows what it's allowed to show, but keeps their secrets ("undisclosed location" and all that); and it portrays the operatives as the honourable front-liners getting their hands dirty (but not bloody),beyond moral reproach by virtue of hard graft. In Bigelow's world, it's the suits in Washington who have the blood in their hands - they're disconnected, as evidenced when torture-specialist Dan (Jason Clarke) returns to US headquarters from the field and loses his nerve, becoming a man of soft probabilities.

Clarke is solid but lost amidst superior talent, as he was in John Hillcoat's recent Lawless. Jessica Chastain delivers a nuanced performance. Driven professionals in films often come across as stolid, but Chastain is an actor of subtlety - even if Bigelow can't help lensing her like a wind-swept movie star in the Middle Eastern magic light. Jennifer Ehle uses her moon-faced radiance to good effect, filling her eager operative Jessica with youthful energy. There's a fair amount of distracting spot-the-cameo going on, particularly toward the end, when Joel Edgerton, Mark Duplass and James Gandolfini turn up.

Bigelow's directorial talent is never in doubt. The final sequence in particular is harrowingly tense, even though we know the outcome. And she generally gets the best out of actors. But make no mistake: this is a deeply patriotic film which is cheering for the home team, and it does so under the guise of objectivity, which makes it more manipulative than flag-waving fare like Last Ounce of Courage or Act of Valor, albeit much more skilfully made.

While watching, I began to form the opinion that the character of Maya wasn't a single, specific person who might have 'broken' the case of finding Usama bin Laden. The FAQ board for the film here on IMDb answers that question. Maya, portrayed by Jessica Chastain, was a composite character of several female CIA agents who worked on the bin Laden case, both before and after 9/11. I don't know if knowing that before seeing the picture helps or not.

I thought the picture effectively demonstrated the excruciating detail and frustration of gathering evidence to pin down a shadowy figure like bin Laden. Additional viewings of the picture would probably help in keeping up with the myriad of characters involved on the Muslim side. This is highlighted by the fact that the first Abu Ahmed turned out to be a false lead. A sit up and take notice moment occurred for me when a particular negotiation for information rested on a deal for a Lamborghini.

The most impressive scenes for this viewer involved the storming of the compound in Abbotobad. The harrowing tension one feels while watching the Navy SEALs is juxtaposed by their own relatively calm demeanor in fulfilling their mission. That's probably what was most impressive about the SEAL team performance, composure under duress, even after one of the choppers went down before the mission even started.

I held off watching the film until now because I thought there was more of a political agenda attached to it. One might possibly argue that point with the torture scenes or the seeming incapacity of the upper echelon personnel in the CIA to make a decision, but I perceived the picture almost as if it were a documentary about the planning and execution of a complex mission to take out the world's most notorious terrorist at the time. On that level, I think the film makers did a good job.

"Zero Dark Thirty" is a very funny film. This is because the far Hollywood left condemned it for condoning torture and the far right (and CIA) condemned it because it seemed to indicate torture was often used when it wasn't--and odd case where both extremes seemed, in an odd way, to be in agreement! As for me, I wanted to see it simply because Asner and others DIDN'T want me to see the film and the more they complained, the more I felt it would be worth while. That, and the fact that it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar guaranteed that sooner or later I'd see "Zero Dark Thirty". Despite this, however, I really wasn't all that anxious to watch the picture and didn't love watching it. Why? Because I know in general what happened and none of it really came as a surprise--and so it was all very anticlimactic.

Despite not adoring the film, it was pretty much what I expected from director Kathryn Bigelow--a very competently made film that seems almost documentary-like and with many lesser-known actors. She did a great job with "Hurt Locker" and once again she did a fine job with this movie. I would say more but frankly by this time (well after the Oscars),there have already been a bazillion reviews and I doubt if I would add more.

By the way, did any of you feel a bit odd seeing Chris Pratt (Andy from "Parks and Recreation") in the film? After seeing him in this other role, seeing him with the Seal Team was odd to say the least!