Of course if you believe in that kind of thing (and I’m taking it in the context of the Christian/Catholic religion that was shown), people don’t become angels when they die and go to heaven, they become saints. Angels are a different order of being from humans. But that is another rant, along with the one about “that’s not what the Immaculate Conception means”.
It does, indeed, but that is not all these days - entire movies shot in extreme close-up also suck. We don’t even get a whole face on screen these days - just part of an actor’s face filling up the whole screen, then part of the other actor’s face filling up the whole screen, for two hours.
But anyone who is still overusing shakycam sucks, too. 
I forgot about lens flare - that can fuck right off, too.
Old chestnut film crew joke:
What’s the difference between a flare and a Specular Highlight?
$ 3,500 a day.
We don’t joyfully experience flares. I’ve fought 'em my entire career and 99% of the time I find them to be loathsome.
For some reason ( probably because I cannot speak up negatively against Star Trek ) I loved the heavy handed and purposeful flaring in the reboot of Star Trek that JJ Abrams directed a few years ago. But I have to admit, that’s the sole exception.
Otherwise? Meh. It isn’t art. It’s lazy operating.
I suspected as much. 
(JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek” is the most egregious example of it, but we’re seeing it all over the place these days - we call Erica Durance’s new show “Saving Lens Flare.” )
This has been the subject of some sober conversation on sets. Gone, it seems, are the wider angle expansive establishing shots. Gone are the whole-room relation shots. The reason is that while it’s true that some folks are watching commercially made films on 46 - 80" home teevees, plenty of folks are watching movies on iPads and smart phones and small digital hard drives with small screens.
Movies are being composed to accommodate this. It is an abomination.
Just as we move through spaces immense and quite small and all in between and take those spaces in, so should we be allowed to tell stories with a camera.
I miss wide-angle shots. 
If it’s any consolation to the OP, despite unlikely odds, the Academy today quite appropriately overlooked Hooper and Cohen for Oscar nominations in their respective categories. I can’t think of a recent major film so hopelessly misdirected, and the photography work I found quite boring compared to a lot of work this year (including the 5 lucky nominees).
True, the film still has 8 nods, but with Hooper out of the race, the likelihood of it winning Best Picture has plummeted. So while Hathaway and a few craftsmen might walk away with a couple statues, it probably won’t be a sweep.
It was my biggest complaint with “Hunger Games” - I wanted to see what that fantasy world looked like, not what parts of the main characters’ faces looked like in constant extreme close-up. I think that was a travesty, that in such a visual movie, set in such an interesting world, the director chose to show so little of it.
So the Academy declined to take the Oscar Bait?
No the Academy knew it sucked. Although I am surprised at Hugh Jackman getting a nomination.
Not surprised at Hathaway but Sally Fields should win for Lincoln.
It didn’t suck, the academy just wants an American film to win and they have put all their eggs into one basket with Lincoln.