OK, we get it. You're handsome. But you're not the star of the show.

I'm so with you on this. Watching it right after the far-superior documentary, also Oscar nominated ("The Square"), by the time we had our 593rd close-up of Scahill, I regretted his ego got in the way of an important story. (And how important we see him shopping.)

That's because this is presented (as it should be) as an documentary of investigation.

Scahill is very aware that he can only show us what he's found out and explain what HE thinks is happening based on the evidence he recovered and the people he talked to.

To me it looks much more genuine if we have the investigator actually on the screen, than if we're just shown images with voice over and have to accept everything as facts. There are a lot of facts, but also a lot of conclusions & opinions.

Scahill tries to stay as neutral as possible and does a great job of it (which could explain the monotone voice), but like any of us he has an angle, this documentary has an angle, so I think it's good that there is a face that we can associate with the angle.

So you found him to be handsome, and that colored your opinion of the film. Personally, I didn't find him attractive or unattractive. In fact, his looks were the furthest thing from my mind while watching the horrors unfold onscreen. Perhaps you should reassess which films to watch based on the way you watch them.

Nice handle though, I'll give you that.

I agree. He really needed an honest friend to review a rough cut... "Really great documentary Jeremy, but uhm, maybe not so much of... you."