i hear Travolta is actually OK in this (aside from the fact that he needs 4 lbs. of pancake makeup and a girdle for scenes when he's playing 30 years younger), and this could have been at least an interesting movie if it was made 20 years ago by at least semi-competent people.
In real life, people are incapable of holding cameras steady so that only adds to the immediacy of the footage and gives it that gritty authenticity that films where the camera people are apparently able to manipulate cameras without wobbling about like drunks lack.
Put it this way: it's a really bad sign for a movie when the studio sits on it for a year or two and then, instead of releasing it, sells the rights to the filmmakers for cheap and washes their hands of it. Lionsgate thought this was so terrible, they didn't even try to re-coup costs in the usual way.
Is there a jump from 0:47-0:48? Or did the movie seriously edit it that way? What that intentionally supposed to be a jump cut?
Looking over the clip again, and I honestly think they just shot the scene with medium shots of Travolta staring straight ahead, then did B roll closeup for all his side glances. I...I don't think they shot any his closeups while the scene was going on. They truly did not care if his reaction shots matched during filming OR editing.