I think you're just re-illustrating my point when you mention RYAN and then BOURNE. There's a world of dif between them in terms of how the technique is used, same for me when DIE HARD and TheAbrams are compared. (to cut off the smartass who is going to post 'so you are comparing DIE HARD TO SAVING PRIVATE RYAN,' followed by the emoticon of the hour, no, I am comparing the use of a technique in each of these and how well said technique was employed.)
My view is not at all original or out-of-the-box: you have to learn the rules in order to break them, or know when to try. Yet I don't even see basic cinematic grammar observed much anymore in movies, because it is almost like they are made in sentence fragments and run-ons (and yeah, I know this analogy breaks down because language doesn't allow for a direct linkage between written word and pics, which is why one of the latter is worth ... ) I think this is to the detriment of the storytelling, although I guess it is a way to throw up more of a screen against picking holes in the story for many.
I'm not suggesting that movies would benefit from being recut to look like 5 DAYS ONE SUMMER, Zinneman's last film, which probably runs 45 minutes before you even get a closeup and actually creaks along so slowly that you could get arthritis just watching it. And there are plenty of filmmakers who do actually make films without the distractions, which is how I would characterize the usually unmotivated and dramatically distracting lens flares, along with those who can't hold on a master shot for more than 2 seconds for fear their weak sense of composition will bore the audience.
The 'cut before it gets boring' mindset seems understandable from panicky editors turned directors (I'm looking RIGHT AT YOU stu baird, you don't deserve upper case letters as a director), but it seems very odd from people who actually are supposed to be able to set up a shot that is aesthetically satisfactory and tells the story.