If shaky cam is supposed to evoke realism.....

Shaky cam isn't for realism, it's for more intense action.

The camera work wasn't only annoying but also amateurish. Trying to use zooms for added effect is an absolute no no.

As for the oft cited "realism", what a load of rubbish. What is real to me is what I see out of my own two eyes when I look at the real world and it never ever shakes and wobbles around and zooms in and out. Regardless of the intensity of whatever I might be doing, the world through my two eyes remains rock solid. I can't speak for other people but I believe that I am probably not unique in this respect and that this is normal. It makes sense that our eyes and brains work this way because otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sense of anything when we play sports or if we're fighting for our lives.

The "realism" here is about making it look like a documentary, perhaps filmed by a reporter and his cameraman while under fire or whatever. Ok I can accept that however when I watch a documentary it is not me that is in the middle of the action, it is me watching something real that someone else filmed. But when I watch a movie I don't want to feel this way, I want to suspend my disbelief and believe that I'm in the middle of it all. So in other words the moment the camera shakes or wobbles or zooms then it rips me out of the movie experience and reminds me that it's just a movie and isn't real.

What are wrong with you shaky cam haters?It's an aesthetic choice by the filmmaker, it in no way means he was being lazy or didn't know what he was doing, just that he likes it.

I don't know how this scene is more real than anything in the Bourne series, it's Tom Cruise shooting two guys and it's look very pretty.

[deleted]