His cin1c84ematic style reflects his script. He is not a director who uses any flashy box of tricks.
Its that man again!!

Sayles' style is akin to that of John Ford; you don't detect it with your eyes, it places itself within your mind. I once read an article that described Ford, along with Luis Bunuel, as having an "invisible style" that could be mistaken for deficiecy in distinctive form. Despite not employing gimmicks, I feel that Sayles' films evoke a particular feeling that cannot be put down to his writing alone.
Can't wait to strap on your groovy old man.

I know that this is a bit later than everybody else's posts, but I would like to comment on John Sayles's "cinematic style."
Two things I have noted (and forgive me, because I might not know the correct film term):

1. His use of a slow fade, bringing to images together, juxtaposing them. I love that.
2. Second, his use of authentic musical montages: someone driving, walking, to music. Usually, beautifully done.
   Just thought I would throw that out there.

This message has been deleted.

Sayles is a writer first. His cinematic style - to me - is a style that changes to whatever is needed to help tell put the screenplay on screen in the best possib;le way.

There is an interview with John Sayles on the ain't it cool website, I do not see it posted but Sayles explained why he uses a widescreen format for Lone Star, as it was to work with the landscape and help with the storytelling.
I agree, he uses film technique to assist the screenplay, form and content blended together.