It's common with Oliver Stone’s films that political elements overshadow discussions of the actual movie itself, leading viewers to react based on those politics rather than the film's merits. While I share the political viewpoint presented in *Salvador*, I’ll attempt to set that aside for now and focus on the film itself; it’s worth noting, however, that the story highlights incidents deserving of greater attention within the United States. The movie shares similarities with *Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas*, but stripped of any humor or glamour—instead presenting a grimly realistic portrayal. It follows a journalist and his companion, not seeking out the allure of Las Vegas to find the American Dream, but traveling through Central America to uncover atrocities funded by the United States. The film is loosely inspired by real events, dramatizing them while aiming to provoke moral outrage in the audience—and it’s genuinely disturbing. Looking back at films like *WTC* and *Snowden*, which came after *Alexander*, it's clear that Stone was diverging from the stylistic elements that initially defined his work. Conversely, *Salvador* represents a return to those familiar tropes; watching it feels like witnessing Stone honing his craft, almost building toward something larger if you’re already an admirer of his films. The signature quick editing and abundance of recognizable actors hadn't fully developed yet, but you can see the groundwork being laid for what Oliver Stone movies would eventually become—all fueled by a palpable youthful energy. Stone clearly invested himself in this project, and that effort is evident throughout *Salvador*. The film succeeds whether or not you align with its political message; it stands as an exceptional war drama. However, if you're studying filmmaking, set aside the plot for a moment. Consider the final product alongside the limited resources Stone had available—that’s the crucial takeaway any aspiring filmmaker should get from this movie.

Source on TMDB