How accurate is the movie/documentary Bitter Lake?

While much of the documentary gets in to 20 year territory, the majority of my impression of Bitter Lake was that it was just vacuous.

I didn't think it was inaccurate I just thought it was literally a waste of time. The positions that it put forward as being controversial actually aren't all that controversial (though I would disagree with the sort of meta-narrative that the lack of understanding about this is all some kind of elite conspiracy. It's my political opinion based on study and experience but I find "elite conspiracy"-thinking to just be pure applesauce. It's elite, and they have a plan, but none of this is exactly secret. Anyways, a diversion.)

I thought it was a 2 hour doc the content of which could have been done in about 20 minutes.

That was my primary reaction to it. Anger at wasting my time.

I think if I could boil down my objections to it, they would be as follows:

Claiming that elites oversimplify narratives while engaging in massive oversimplification of narratives.
Over-use of "narrative" format in a documentary: I can't speak to anyone else but I usually like my documentaries to use a wide range of sources, particularly interviews and/or historical audio-visual clips, given that that's the strength of the documentary format. Bitter Lake uses literally one interview from a low ranking British officer. IIRC we don't hear the question he was asked and he basically reiterates what we have heard for the past hour+ of the film.
No recognition for "native" issues of the conflict. Again, with so much time being wasted on trippy visuals, surely there would be some time for, I dunno, non-Saudi Islamist ideology? The Muslim Brotherhood? Pakistan's meddling in Afghanistan? The Iranian revolution? The stalemate of the Afghan civil war after the US stopped funding the conflict when the Soviets withdrew? I dunno, literally anything that makes these issues as complicated as they are? Nope. Linear drive. US and Saudi in 1945. Afghanistan construction deals. Saudi oil money. Arms deals. No real complexity.
A bunch of 20 year-rule objections that nonetheless relate to kind of longer term counter-terror/counter-insurgency analysis. The scenes of Afghans studying Marcel Duchamp's Fountain are, as best as I can tell, meant to be a sort of "What the fuck are we even doing?" moment. I don't mean that to be flip. As best as I remember they're presented with next to zero commentary. I can think of far more substantive political issues about US/Allied counter-insurgency/democracy building initiatives than a one-off art class.

Taking the equivalent amount of time and using it to read Ghost Wars or the The Looming Tower or probably even watching the dramatized fictional Charlie Wilson's War would probably be a better use of your time.

I can point to a bunch of 20 year-rule-violating documentaries that I would suggest as likewise being a better use of your time which you can PM me for if you'd like.

edit: It must be said, I'm kind of tempted to delete my comment because, as I think I've made clear from my perspective, Adam Curtis makes explicitly political documentaries and my objections are, in some sense, explicitly political. I've tried to be fair but I have to recognize that I am not sympathetic to his primary political motivations and so my views of his documentary must therefore be judged accordingly. I simply do not agree, politically, with how he views elite control and motivations in society and as a result I am not going to be sympathetic to his views, even though, as I have said, some of his political analysis or assumptions I find to be correct.