Oliver Stone's 'Salvador' - Underappreciated Chaos and Visual Storytelling

Okay, so I just re-watched Oliver Stone's 'Salvador' (1986) and I'm left feeling… messy. In a good way, I think. It's not a comfortable watch, obviously, but the way Stone throws you right into the middle of El Salvador's civil war is just brutal and effective. James Woods' performance as Richard Boyle is chaotic, sure, but it works. It perfectly mirrors the film's overall vibe: a frenetic, almost documentary-style immersion into utter political and social breakdown. I think what impresses me the most is Stone's use of hand-held camera work and the overall gritty cinematography. It's not pretty, but it's real. There's this one scene specifically, where John Cassady is filming the military dumping bodies into a ditch. The shaking camera, the harsh light, the sheer horror of it all… it just hits you in the gut. It's not trying to be glamorous, it's just showing you what Boyle, and by extension, the viewer, is witnessing. This commitment to a sort of brutal realism is what separates 'Salvador' from other war films, in my opinion. It feels more immediate, more raw, and a bit more dangerous. I do think he sometimes leans a bit too much into the shock value - some scenes feel almost exploitative (thinking of the violence against Maria, for example). But ultimately, that visual chaos is part of the film's point, right? The cinematography reflects the complete lack of order and control that Boyle is experiencing. He's this flawed, self-serving journalist, trying to navigate a situation that's so much bigger and more horrific than he ever imagined. Anyway, I feel like 'Salvador' gets overlooked a lot when people talk about Stone's stuff. It's definitely not 'Platoon' or 'Born on the Fourth of July' in terms of mainstream appeal, but I think it's a really powerful, visually striking (if sometimes problematic) piece of filmmaking. What do you guys think? Are we giving 'Salvador' enough love, or is it justly forgotten?