An OK movie spoilt by shaky camera work

Rating: 4/10 (26 February 2014)

As the title says, I found this to be an OK film - nothing more, nothing less. On the plus side, it's a true story (with a little Hollywood embellishment), and as a tale it definitely deserved to be told on the big screen. Tom Hanks is very good (as you'd expect) and he delivers a nicely nuanced performance as the slightly world-wearing eponymous captain. Additionally, the Somali pirates are very well portrayed displaying the edgy, unpredictability of men in that situation.
However, on the negative side, I personally found this movie a little too long in places. For example, the sequence where the SEALS are attempting to get all three pirates in their sights before firing just seemed to take an age. So much so, that for me, it went past the point of creating tension, and bordered on creating boredom.
But the biggest problem for me is the hideous shaky camera work. Why oh why is this method of film-making still so popular? It's nothing more than nausea-inducing and adds absolutely nothing to the cinematic experience in my opinion. I can just about accept it during high-octane action sequences just as the beach landing in Saving Private Ryan, but when it's a shot of Tom Hanks standing on the bridge of a container ship on a calm day looking through some binoculars, why does the camera have to be swaying around the cameraman is try to play hide and seek? The shaky camera is a great way to ruin an otherwise reasonable movie.
In summary, it's an OK film for one viewing (provided you have a sick bag at the ready, should the camera work really get to you), but it's not something I plan to watch again. I'd give the story a 7/10, but the camera-work a 2/10. Overall 4/10. All in all, a bit over-rated.