I don't buy the 'rule of cool'. I think that's BS made up by lazy writers and/or people who don't care about problems in the story. It's your business whether or not you care, but I still don't think it gets them out of it.
It's not an issue or 'realism' or 'accuracy' as it is simple competent story telling. If things are being accomplished in ways that should not work (even given the logic of the story) or doing things that don't make sense then that is a plot hole; and plot holes are objectively bad writing.
I can't think of a single film that would live up to your standards. Not any decent films, anyway, except films like Saving Private Ryan (historical fiction), but certainly no sword films. I suppose I could start by throwing out my entire collection of Asian films and go from there.
And, frankly, I think realistic battles look a lot cooler. I think high-flying shaky-cam looks terrible and is extremely repetitive.
I agree about the shaky cam. I hate it in most films, especially when I can't tell what's happening, but I find your comment puzzling when talking about realism, because shaky cam footage is exactly
what you would get if someone were on the battlefield with a handheld camera in the middle of a real battle.