I believe Film is the combination of over a dozen factors, and while Cinematography may especially appeal to most here (including me), for every dull movie with exciting cinematography you can find an amazing movie with minimalistic cinematogrpahy. If the story can hold up, the cinematography can only enahnce it. Very rarely does it distract from the story, but it's almost like comparing Ozu to Kurosawa. Ozu had amazing characters and stories, and almost never moved his camera - it's by no means a negative example of cinematography, but rather a simple and effective minimalistic approach. On the other hand Kurosawa's movies, despite having amazing stories and characters, also had amazingly lush and complex cinematography. Something as simple as walking through the woods in Rashomon becomes an ingeniously choreographed scene, and Ran relies on its striking visuals to compliment its story at every turn, greatly enhancing the story. While an amazing story will be remembered in any format, on film a cinematographer has the chance to make someone not only remember the story but also the visuals that accompany it. The cinematographer is an interpreter, if you will, translating the story to a visual medium and interpreting the director's vision correctly. Watch 'City of God' again if you need a reminder of how memorable cinematography can enhance a story beyond the synopsis you read on websites and into a visual experience. Great cinematography is only fantastic to watch if the story and a host of other things hold up. As important and impacting as it is, it very rarely can hold an entire movie together. The style can overpower the substance (Kill Bill) but not unless the substance can support the style. You could build a mansion, but if it's on a weak foundation, no matter how impressive it may look it won't hold up. It IS essential to the filmmaking process, but I think we should remember its place in the overall process.