I saw this movie last night and really thought it was great. I had read some negative commentary about Zero Dark Thirty:
"At the same time, a number of journalists and public officials—including three United States senators—have excoriated Zero Dark Thirty. Their main complaint is that the film greatly overstates the role played by torture—or “enhanced interrogation techniques,” in the CIA’s terrifying euphemism—in extracting from al-Qaeda-affiliated detainees information that ultimately led to the discovery of Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was killed by Navy SEALs on May 2, 2011." (from New York Review of Books)
With the benefit of having seen the movie, I feel this critique, like the whole article, is quite overwrought.
You have to be a very observant movie watcher (catching the many unfamiliar names that are rattled off) to truly have an impression that torture played a key role in the information that led to USM's demise.
Also you have to have missed TV shows like '24' and 'Homeland' to be overly shocked by the depictions of torture. There was no blood, and the hitting was quite mild really.
[spoiler alert] I mean an interrogation scene in Homeland this last season had the interrogator very suddenly and unexpectedly pull out a knife and stick it hard into the victims hand as the hands were flat on a table. That was shocking!
See the movie. It's really interesting while being a edge-of-your-seat story.