Essentially, that is production values, as you mentioned, although it also has to do with style and directorial vision.

If I was to discuss a film’s storytelling or thematic strength I think I would use different words, rather than ‘cinematic.’

Aye yai yai, I hate semantics sometimes.

I guess I lied: I have an idea of what I mean when I say cinematic. To my mind, something is cinematic if it does its business (tells a story, imparts a theme or idea) in a way that is unique to the cinema; i.e., in a way that only film could.
For instance, the old canard that film should show rather than tell.

But, as usual, your mileage may vary. Anyway, fine work on my fave film blog.

Somehow, I doubt the makers of Beer for My Horses gave anywhere near as much thought (or any thought at all) to their set decoration and cutting, regardless of the camerawork.

In regards to the filmmakers you’ve mentioned, I’d be willing to say that Fellini and Ozu were not particularly cinematic either, at least stylistically. However, they were working with complex and fascinating themes, which is where the real value of their films lie. I don’t watch an Ozu film for the camerawork; I don’t watch it for its ‘cinematic’ aesthetic. There are other, very valid reasons why I watch it.

In regards to Kurosawa, wides and mediums are fine as long as what is placed within the frame is interesting. Kurosawa was cinematic in numerous ways that this film was not, even if he did eschew closeups.

Beer For My Horses, however, doesn’t have much going for it, period. Being more ‘cinematic’ would have gone a long way to increasing its worth and my ability to recommend it. The style is lazy and most of the elements are shoehorned into the film. And while Keith and Co. are entertaining at times, it doesn’t help matters that they look like they’re in a direct-to-video release.

But one question: how is it not cinematic? Many of the greats (see Kurosawa after he went widescreen) shot primarily in medium and wide shots, and if you want to hear bad sound design, look no further than one Federico Fellini. And Ozu shot with a stationary camera from a single low angle, and used the most static establishing shots you’ve ever seen. So, what is cinematic?

As someone who wouldn’t mind being a full time critic (actually, I am full time…I just have another full time job that actually pays me money), watching films like this and writing on them is important. We are somewhat blessed in that we get to choose what we want to see and what we want to write about. Professional critics often do not have that luxury. Manohla Dargis was able to write about The Dark Knight and In Search of a Midnight Kiss, but she also had to watch and write about Step Brothers and Journey to the Center of the Earth.

If one intends to do this professionally and get paid for it (an opportunity that is quickly drying up, I realize), one must learn how to watch and write about movies like this and not go crazy/bitter/cynical. Otherwise you’ll begin to hate film criticism, because for every amazing, life changing film, you’ll have 2-3 soul-crushing turds.

And just for the record, Beer For My Horses is not a soul-crushing turd. I actually found quite a bit to like about it, even if it isn’t ‘my kind of film.’ It’s almost worth watching it to see the musical harmonizing between Lonnie and the gangbangers in the interstate reststop. Like something out of Rocky Horror Picture Show.

From the bit that I saw, I think this is pretty great for its intended audience and anyone who can appreciate said population. I, for one, grew up near the town of Aynor, South Carolina, which is the Southern equivalent of wherever these folks are in Oklahoma.