There’s a whole language baked into those Hollywood classics frames: actors, wardrobe, blocking, lighting, set design… every element supports the tone. Even a single still says so much because it’s built around subject, not just color and grain.
Also checked the Mexico & Tokyo Gawx videos. What’s cool there is how different the tools are (one shot on Fuji, one literally on an iPhone), yet both look super filmic. That’s not just the grade in DaVinci, it’s how he shoots. The variety of angles, the rhythm of edits, the way shots alternate between wide/symmetrical and close/intimate. There’s a real visual language there, and the music choices help carry the mood. Kinda Wes Anderson meets lo-fi travel doc.
All of which kind of reinforces the point that gear and grading matters, but what you point it at and how you frame/cut it matters a whole lot more. Vintage lenses and power grades are dope, but the film look really comes alive when there’s composition, movement, and some intention behind the shots.
As someone else mentioned above, it’s hard to judge when youre shooting plants or the kitchen. Nothing wrong with testing gear but cinema’s called motion pictures for a reason. If nothing’s moving, not the subject or the camera, it starts to feel more like still photography with a film LUT on top. You don’t need actors either, just find something with a bit of energy or make the camera do the work.
For further inspiration, there’s a young travel filmmaker on YouTube whose shorts are very cinematic (albeit clean digital, not in any retro lofi aesthetic). I found him as I was looking for Canon R5ii 4K SRAW footage. This probably won't help you in the chased 35mm film anamorphic look aesthetic but in the end what really stood out is how mature his visual language and storytelling is, and his last video breaks down his inspirations and techniques: