When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Compelling civil war drama by Oliver Stone with a great James Woods (as well as a great Jim Belushi). Stone's best films have always been his highly political ones, and this is no exception. Brutal, realistic portrayal of the conflict in El Salvador and America's implications. This is one to re-discover by film fans as it seems to have fallen a bit into obscurity over the years. Highly recommended: 8 stars out of 10.In case you're interested in more underrated masterpieces, here's some of my favorites:imdb.com/list/ls070242495

I happened to stumble across Salvador while browsing the DVDs in a local charity shop. Instantly I was drawn to the text on the cover which included:'An Oliver Stone Film'"Salvador is sensational." - The ObserverNominated for two Oscars, this gripping, semi-biographical account of photojournalist Richard Boyle's tumultuous experience in war-torn El Salvador has a power you can feel!1 hour, 58 minutes after inserting the DVD into the player, I came away with a mixture of thoughts. In some ways Salvador is good, and some of the scenes work really well. The biggest issue I had was with the two main stars, Jim Belushi and James Woods. Jim Belushi is a good actor, but somehow feels poorly cast for his role, coming across as comical. James Woods just seems dated, and feels the need to act hyper all the time, which got on my nerves. For the most part, both lead actors are out performed by the rest of cast (bar Michael Murphy & the female TV reporter) who act more naturally.Salvador feels dated, at 21 years old, maybe this is to be expected. Maybe it impressed back in the day. The idea is there. While I am not in favour of remakes, Salvador is an ideal candidate, as it would be great to watch actors act in such a way as to reflect the gritty nature of the situation they report on. Sensational or gripping aren't words I'd use to describe Salvador. The subject matter the story covered was of interest.

This is considered to be Oliver Stone's best film but I disagree , PLATOON is the best film helmed by Stone but SALVADOR is probably a fair way behind it . Unlike PLATOON which was a heartfelt movie mirroring the director's own experiences in Vietnam it's slightly difficult to connect with the characters . They're cynical and hedonistic to start with but improve as people as the film continues making the movie a slightly too obvious redemption plot , not helped with some Catholic imagery James Woods plays journalist Richard Boyle . Perfect casting by Stone which got Woods his first and last Oscar nomination for Best Actor . Woods has always been superb at playing intense , manic dangerous characters and excels at playing someone who suffers from a borderline narcissistic personality disorder who continually tells the world that whilst Sydney Schanberg was picking up his Purlitzer Prize ( See THE KILLING FIELDS ) he was the last journalist out of Cambodia . It's also interesting that Boyle's main motive for going to El Salvador is that it costs a mere $50 a month to live there whilst whores and drugs are easy to come by . Of course all this changes when Boyle gets caught up in events and becomes a crusader against human rights abuses by the right wing government The one main problem can be accused off from a moral viewpoint is one of moral equivalence . Alex Cox criticised the film where Boyle sees left wing guerrillas executing captured troops and cries that one side is as bad as the other according to Cox . I can't recall Boyle saying that but my own problem with moral equivalence is at the start of the film where Boyle self righteously proclaims he broke a story about " IRA suspects getting tortured by the Brits in Belfast " Is there any connection between the Irish troubles and what goes on in central America ? To be fair to Stone he does point out the American establishment's fear of El Salvador coming under the Soviet sphere of influence . And if Stone didn't have a deserved or otherwise reputation as a Hollywood liberal would people nitpick the film so much ?One thing about Stone's direction is how restrained it is in relation to his later work . There's a directorial technique called " Intensified continuity " which in laymans terms is MTV style film making . Stone took this to new heights ( Or possibly depths depending on your view ) with JFK and NATURAL BORN KILLERS . Here however the camera work is disciplined with no OTT flourish and Stone thankfully lets the performances , plotting and dialogue carry the film which whilst an effective political drama doesn't carry the emotional wallop of PLATOON

As jobbing photojournalist Richard Boyle (James Woods) and his friend Dr. Rock (James Belushi) guzzle booze and drugs in a red convertible on their journey south of the border, you'd be forgiven for thinking you were watching a sort of Fear and Loathing in El Salvador. But where Hunter S. Thompson journeys into the heart of the American Dream, Oliver Stone's semi-biographical thriller explores its outward reach as franchiser to the Third World. What emerges is an exposé of the superpower's influence in creating a late-twentieth-century Heart of Darkness.No sooner do Boyle and Dr. Rock settle into the roles of the partying gringos than they find rifles pointed at them at a military roadblock. 'Whatever you do Doc', warns Boyle, 'don't get on the ground.' The first in a series of tense, sweaty set-pieces, Boyle must defuse the situation, armed only with a couple of knock-off watches and his oily charm. It is in these scenes of forced laughter with grave locals that the self-confessed 'weasel' Boyle excels; his defining characteristic appears to be his knack for self-preservation. It is a role perfectly suited to its star: no one balances sleaze with intensity quite like James Woods.Leeching and lying his way through encounters with acquaintances and enemies, Boyle is a strange, flawed protagonist. He lacks the maverick talent traditionally bestowed on the anti-hero, which is here embodied in old friend John Cassady (John Savage), a photojournalist fiercely committed to the ideal of the world-changing shot. But as Boyle bears witness to the atrocities committed and hypocrisies inherent in the country's Civil War, he becomes more impassioned with every picture he takes. Where he is initially concerned with staying off of the dreaded ground, he grows to stand up for those who are stuck there.Stone shoots the movie much like a war-photographer, capturing the atrocities as an outsider, and wisely reigns in the visual excess that would come to define much of his nineties work. 'Gotta get close to get the truth', Cassady intones as he climbs over a mound of corpses, 'You get too close, you die'. Stone's camera stays eye-level with his protagonist, casting from above the American gaze over a people who live on their knees, or else are strewn lifelessly across the landscape.Behind the brutal military regime that tries to suppress the (equally brutal) peasant guerrillas sits the U.S. government. Their presence as 'advisors' lends a sense of futility to the battle-scenes: no matter how bravely or well each side fights, Stone suggests, the outcome will ultimately be decided amongst Americans in an office far removed from the battlefield. Boyle professes his patriotism in a climactic speech that fails to convince, in spite of Woods' best efforts; channelling the outspoken Stone himself, he reserves his most damning accusations for the government of his homeland.Despite slipping into the preachy and manipulative at times- a distressing scene involving a group of nuns is particularly heavy-handed, regardless of whether it is based in fact- this is an effective, tense thriller, with some interesting contemplations of journalistic and political responsibility. As much character piece as polemic, Salvador is highly recommended, for Woods' wired performance in particular.