A.O. Scott writing in "The New York Times" came to believe, "The relentless attention to the sheer awfulness of war, which is the film's great strength, is also something of a shortcoming. Mr. Gitai reproduces the numb horror of wading through fields of gore almost too well: the self-protective response is to shut down your emotions, as the characters do. "Kippur" immerses you in violence and agony, but it may leave you with a curious feeling of detachment." Sean Axmaker of the "Seattle Post-Intelligencer", felt "Kippur" was "almost abstract in its portrait of confusion. Long, numbing scenes of soldiers rushing through the war zone with the wounded and returning for more are accompanied by an overwhelming soundtrack of tanks, helicopters and explosions." He also reserved praise for director Gitai, saying he "captures a chaotic portrait of the war with no glory, only the confusion, fear, and fatigue of a tour under fire." Author G.A. of "Time Out" called the film "impressive" while remarking "Gitai's autobiographically inspired account of the harrowing experiences of a first-aid team in the aftermath of Syria and Egypt's surprise attack on Israel in October 1973 typically features long, sinuous takes to chart the way in which patriotic enthusiasm is steadily eroded and replaced by fatigue and disillusionment." In a mixed review, Fred Camper writing for the "Chicago Reader" felt director "Gitai plunges the viewer into the reality of modern warfare, in which the enemy is often invisible – we never see the Syrians in Kippur – and battle lines are often unclear." Jack Mathews writing for the "NY Daily News", believed that instead of "heightening our sense of empathy, we become numbed by the repetition" of the film.