One month and six days after its US release, Zero Dark Thirty has finally appeared in British cinemas. Weeks of charged press commentary, with claims of inaccuracy and immorality, have preceded its release. Much to my surprise, I now understand why.

I went to see Zero Dark Thirty expecting the many reviews I'd read to be so much prejudiced hot air. The film, which charts the long process of finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, infamously depicts the torture of captured persons in the custody of the US. While this is a tricky topic, I could only wonder how a viewer could fail to be repulsed if the film showed torture with any realism at all. The film’s director, Kathryn Bigelow, could hardly be accused of endorsing torture if she merely depicted it in all its cruelty.

I was quite mistaken. Bigelow, I believe, was indeed at fault. The film’s brutal torture scenes are followed shortly by scenes involving terrorist attacks. The intelligence the CIA was trying to extract from these detainees could have saved so many lives, the film seems to argue, and the torture begins to look justified.

Of course, that is how Maya – the lead character, a young CIA operative sees it and perhaps that’s the point. She enters a CIA culture in which maltreatment of detainees is par for the course: if we're going to get the intelligence needed to save American lives, we're going to have to get it by torture – or so goes the institutional line.

If you knew little about interrogation you could well be forgiven for accepting this story, but it is false. Torture is unreliable and better, less harmful means are available. This is particularly true of the long hunt for Bin Laden, in which a combination of patience and coaxing, persuading and manipulating detainees would likely have been as – or more – successful. I don't criticise Bigelow for showing torture without moral or historical perspective, but I do criticise her for cinematographically linking so closely the interrogation of detainees with terrorist attacks.

On the inaccuracy. Inevitably, films must simplify history and narrow the cast-list when translating a decade-long project into a two-and-a-half hour film. It seemed unreasonable, however, to depict Maya as almost the only person to care about and push forward the hunt for Bin Laden. Sure, this provided human appeal, but Bigelow could have done this differently. Am I wrong? Is the film precisely about the conceit of this female CIA operative? I think not, because – alongside a rather nationalistic portrayal of the team of SEALs who kill Bin Laden – Maya is certainly not an object of criticism.

Perhaps you think you should boycott the film as a result? I would suggest instead that you see it and form your own opinion. First, because this is just my reaction to the film; second, because it is riveting regardless.

Short, intense scenes make the film absolutely gripping throughout. In the film's 157 minutes, the scenes slow only for the Navy SEAL attack on Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad at the end, letting you reconcile yourself to the culmination of a decade-long project. That climax could not have been portrayed better.

The cinematography was solid if unremarkable with ample close-up filming adding to the intensity. The music was largely unobtrusive and only occasionally over-dramatic (a rare virtue, I find). The acting seemed excellent: the characters were by-and-large convincing and less homogenous than in standard CIA blockbusters. It is, however, difficult to fathom the mental state of those working on the hunt for Bin Laden and it’s hard to know whether the actors give an accurate portrayal. Jessica Chastain's Maya, for instance, has an ostensibly unlikely outburst at her superior but certain agents involved in the hunt for Bin Laden were in fact well known for blowing up at their superiors. (Many of the Bin Laden specialists on the assignment had screwed up in the run-up to 9/11 and felt the pressure to find Al Qaeda’s leader.)

The film left me feeling cold and detached, with that strange mind-set which demands that you get on, rationally, efficiently, fuss-free with what you have to do, feeling that little else matters. With that and the apparent normalisation of torture, perhaps the film gives some insight into the mind of a CIA operative. Being British, I'll never know. Though don't be misled: Britain has abused people it has captured, too.

Nicholas is involved with The Wilberforce Society's seminar on February 22nd discussing: 'Abuse and Torture of Captured Persons by British Personnel'.