That is often the case with a movie with historical byproducts included.
A few members of Congress have voiced their concerns and even the CIA has said this is not close to being accurate. However, in the end, it is a movie, in the lines of Kathryn Bigelow's last Oscar winning film, "The Hurt Locker." That, too, had the same eyes after it, but not as deep.
When one looks to Hollywood for its historical facts, that term paper one just turned in, will not pass the sniff test.
Be warned, but be entertained, and it is not necessary to make a big deal out of it. Perhaps it is because of the accusations that surfaced that details of the raid were leaked. But, there was no backlash when Hollywood made "All The President's Men" or hopped on board The Pentagon Papers.
But, it is rare that the CIA speaks up. The real question is then, why did Micheal Morell feel the need to chime in? Perhaps he was told to by someone? Will the agency start commenting on all things that imply such matters, like "Homeland"?
The ebb and flow of Hollywood embracing and fighting government is obvious. From world war to the blacklist and to matters such as presidential elections, it is there. There was also a time when the person in office didn't really matter when making movies about politics. Now, that, too could easily come into question.
The truth meter will tilt when a new party enters the Oval Office. Then, the CIA comments and presidential postering will not be heard. Unless it is against that party. Right now, those comments favor the administration and defends its decisons. So does Hollywood, for the most part, unless it is torture. But that was approved by the other party and the claim is it doesn't work.
It just may be more politics at play here and less about facts. Ater all, facts and Hollywood rarely match up. To spotlight "Zero Dark Thirty" falls on deaf ears - unless you have an agenda.