videorama-759-859391
After seeing Salvador, here's one more place I don't want to visit. Screen writing great Stone, who makes reads so interesting, has made that abundantly. Although it has a crammed feel of story, one can't shy their away from the intensity this movies brings. The only reason I didn't see this at the cinema, was I had seen The Killing Fields a year before, where I thought like that excellent film, this was gonna be just like it,, but there's a lot of nice little things here, that make it different from that. I actually like this movie better than Platoon. James Woods is at his acting best, as a womanizing loser, once famous journalist Richard Boyle, who cons and weasels his way through life (the dangling coin on the string inserted in into the payphone slot I loved). He's a reckless sort with outstanding fines, and a much due rent. Now his Italian girlfriend's taken off back to her home town. His best friend has just bailed him out. He's in the doghouse too. Where do they head: El Salvador. Director Stone doesn't hold back on frank images, some moments will truly disturb viewers, two I won't mention, another one involves the rape and murder of some missionary girls, which I do say touched the gulliver. Boyle rekindling an old relationship, with a young Salvadorian girl marries her and tries to get her out of the country, where her fate lies in the end of the movie, I guess. All actors deliver top floor performances, Belushi as Dr Rock, the always wonderful John Savage as a budding award winning photographer John Cassidy, Tony Plana as the discreetly and corrupt Major Max, though I really didn't think Michael Murphy was that good as the ambassador, putting too little into his performance, where too Juan Fernandez was hauntingly scary as Smiling death. Salvador had some terrifying moments, a lot as Wood's fate was concerned. It's a scary place, and one place to stay well clear of. Opening soundtrack by Giorgio Moroder.
Red-Barracuda
Released in the same year as Platoon, Salvador was somewhat overshadowed. Director Oliver Stone became a household name as a result of his Vietnam Oscar winner but it could be argued that his earlier, lower key film about the U.S. backed civil war in El Salvador is the better film. It's a semi-biographical tale about amoral photo-journalist Richard Boyle who travels to the war torn country with the plan to make money from reporting on the conflict but in the process he unexpectedly becomes politicised and emotionally wrapped up by the atrocities he witnesses. In many ways it's a typical Stone movie where he takes contentious political material and takes a direct uncompromising stance that asks uncomfortable questions about American political morality. It certainly is an early indicator of a film that marks out its director as a maverick of the mainstream. He is assisted very ably here by star James Woods whose charismatic turn as Boyle drives the film dramatically. Woods is always best at playing somewhat sleazy yet sympathetic characters. And here he puts in one of his best performances of that template. Stone's dynamic direction along with Woods edgy energy combines to make Salvador what it is.The subject of U.S. political intervention in Latin America was something of a hot potato back in the 80's; however, its subject remains highly relevant today when you consider the various complications caused by American foreign policy in the intervening 25 years. As a result Salvador has remained quite pertinent politically, while at the same time being an educational depiction of a little discussed civil war. It also works more conventionally as a great thriller too. Overall a pretty compelling and dynamic bit of cinema.
Michael Neumann
After Oliver Stone's success with 'Platoon' came a belated re-evaluation of his previous film, which when first released was more or less dismissed as liberal Left Wing propaganda. But now that Stone has helped placate our collective guilt over the war in Vietnam it seems he can do no wrong, an unfortunate twist of logic since the earlier film may in fact be better than anything he's done since, and is certainly less reverent, less pretentious, and filled with livelier, more natural characters than most of his subsequent features. It doesn't even pretend to be good journalism. From the gaudy, strobe-light opening credits Stone is in (for him) classic form, presenting a wildly overstated pop-fiction account of Third-World turmoil, as seen through the slightly wired perspective of pill-popping ex-photo correspondent and gonzo sleaze-ball Richard Boyle, played by James Woods in a no-holds-barred performance. Subtlety never has been Oliver Stone's strongest asset, but his sensational approach to the subject (particularly in the hyper-dramatic music score, and during the more violent action sequences) can at least be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure.
ciffou
As a Salvadoran myself I have to say it is hard not to be hard with this movie. I get it. It's Hollywood and the actual facts are going to be embellished to attract the audience to a "one wild ride" but it feels so odd to see this in a movie made by a "conscious" Oliver Stone. The acting is bad and I can't believe how anyone will nominate the screenplay as a good one. Why must the character know everyone of the famous martyrs here? (and worst of all, knowing them in a very casual way) Was that the only way for people in the U.S. to feel disgusted by all the things going on here with their support? I don't like the cartoonish characters and the use of only Mexican locations and Mexican actors (as they also did in "Innocent voices").The worst part is to discover Jim Belushi in a movie with the Salvadoran civil war as backgroundThis movie hasn't aged well.
AD
