Shaky-Cam

It wouldn't be fair to call the filmmakers lazy per sé. What most filmmakers do, they do with a purpose. The shaky-cam obviously has a purpose, but that purpose doesn't fit with what a film should be. I get that they're trying to think outside the box and be 'innovative', but this method simply doesn't effectively portray what I believe the filmmakers want convey to their audience, which is a first person perspective. Like I said previously, the 'technique' (if you can call it such) may literally let you see through the character's eyes, but since you are not in control of their actions, like you would be in a video game, it makes no real difference. In a video game, the first person perspective helps to create a connection between the player and the events happening on screen because they are happening to the player. In a film, the first person perspective does nothing but grant the audience a different vantage point from which to view events. It does not add much, if any, emotional connection to the character on screen. In fact, I would argue that it detracts from the emotional connection to the character because the audience is unable to see their facial expressions and body language (which is a huge part of human interaction and relationship formation in daily life).
Sometimes it can provide a thrill factor, but if an audience sees enough of the same technique, they easily become jaded toward it. What really draws audiences in, in my opinion, is the heart and soul of a movie. For all I care, the film could be grainy and have no color; however, if the film contains substantive, deep, evolutionary characters, as well as an engaging and complex (different from complicated)* plot, then I am more than likely to become intellectually and emotionally invested in it because it has substance.
The best films, in addition to having the aforementioned traits, have a soul. This soul contains a message for the audience that it wishes to convey by showing rather than telling. It is not a common adage, maxim, saying, etc, but an experience that many of the human race can relate to, but may not be able to be expressed in so many words.

Having detailed what a good, and great, film should contain, I find it pertinent to mention that I do not hold anything against films made solely for the purpose of entertainment. As long as that is the focus of the film maker during his creative process, the film should turn out to be of high caliber.
What I abhor the most is when filmmakers try to make their creations profound and revolutionary and in the process stray from the path of true film making. They are 'try-hards', as one might say.
I would enjoy a film that is honest in its simplicity much more than one that tries to be something that it is clearly not. The latter is frustrating and agonizing. It feels like I am watching a sports team that tries so hard to be great, but consistently snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

I appreciate your standpoint; however, my point still stands that movies that try to be something more, but fail miserably in the process ('try-hard' films), then I can't stand watching them.

For me, Cloverfield would have been even better if they'd just shot the film normally. Let the actors and the monster be the stars - not the gimmicky camera thing. Just my opinion though.

Some may say that there are too many movies filmed with non-shaking camera, why would anyone keep watching those?
I personally like this kind of movie, since it's easier for the viewer to feel like he's there, in the middle of the action.

Luckily for you there are thousands upon thousands of movies out there shot in the non-shaky cam way for you to enjoy.

shaky cam will come with found footage movies, dont watch them