I liked this film because it not only was entertaining but also enlightening. The film essentially explores the obstacles that veterans have to go through to get medical care and to what length some doctors will go to provide it. It brought me into an awareness that the Veterans Administration may not adequately care for our soldiers once they leave the service. Ray Liotta turned in an endearing performance.
Add a Review
-
Maxi-144 August 1999
-
Tito-811 June 1999As a comedy, this film is a failure. Fortunately, as the film progresses, the lightheartedness is toned down, and it evolves into a thoughtful drama. To be sure, this movie is hard to take seriously at times, but the one-on-one encounters are often rather effective. In particular, the relationship between Kiefer Sutherland and Eli Wallach stood out as my favorite part of the movie. The ending, although hard to believe, still had a powerful kick, and may prove to be an eye-opening experience for some people. It is most certainly a flawed film, but it is also still worth a look, and I would have to say that I learned a thing or two from this movie as well.
-
view_and_review7 April 2020Though many veterans leave the battlefields of war, they sometimes enter another battlefield: that of rehabilitation. So many are physically and psychologically scarred that the medical care they will need after leaving active duty is endless. "Article 99" is about the veterans, the woefully inadequate care they get, the bureaucracy ocean they have to swim through, and the tireless doctors that just want to help.
Dr. Richard Sturgess (Ray Liotta) was the lead doctor of a team of doctors that knew all the tricks to help patients who weren't cleared to be helped. He and his sidekicks, Dr. Handleman (Forest Whitaker) and Dr. Bobrick (John McGinley), were experts at doing end arounds to get patients the critical care they needed and deserved.
Dr. Morgan (Kiefer Sutherland) was new to the V.A. hospital. Would he jump right in and also circumvent the rules to help his patients or would he obediently follow the dictates of the director, Dr. Henry Dreyfoos (John Mahoney), which meant shoving sick veterans out the door because of budget cuts and lost paperwork?
This movie was excellent. It was somewhat hampered by the now-that-we've-had-sex-let's-get-to-know-one-another relationship between Dr. Sturgess and Dr. Diana Walton (Kathy Baker). I think that cheapened the movie which was dealing with a very noble and oft-ignored topic.
Not since "Born on the Fourth of July" had I seen such extensive cinematic coverage of the treatment of ill and injured veterans. "Article 99" took a rather comedic approach to the issue, but not so comedic it minimized the matter. It's a commendable movie that sheds light on the plight of so many veterans and the handcuffed medical workers that want to aid them. -
Set in a VA hospital, this movie illustrates what happens when "red tape" gets in the way of helping people. An enjoyable mixture of comedy and drama, it is reminiscent of the Altman classic M*A*S*H, staring Sutherland's father Donald. In fact, there's a nice salute to the elder Sutherland, during a scene between Keifer and an older hospital patient.
Those who didn't "get" this movie were perhaps looking for the wrong things. I won't say this movie was meant to inform, though perhaps it was. But it definitely makes you think. Is a medical system where doctors have to steal supplies and schedule proxy operations really what our country's heroes deserve? Moving and entertaining, I would definitely recommend this movie. -
SnoopyStyle11 March 2017Pat Travis (Troy Evans) is a military veteran with hopeful expectations as he seeks a triple bypass at a VA hospital. Instead, he finds a chaotic labyrinth of bureaucratic obstacles. Luther Jermoe (Keith David) is a wheelchair-bound veteran experienced in the dysfunction. He tells Pat that there is always Article 99. It's Dr. Peter Morgan (Kiefer Sutherland)'s first day. Dr. Rudy Bobrick (John C. McGinley) takes him under his wing, skirting the bureaucracy to get things done. Dr. Richard Sturgess (Ray Liotta) and Dr. Sid Handleman (Forest Whitaker) are fellow surgeons doing unapproved operations. Director Dr. Henry Dreyfoos (John Mahoney) and Chief of Medicine Dr. Leo Krutz (Jeffrey Tambor) work to maintaining the declining budget by weeding out the patients. Dr. Robin Van Dorn (Lea Thompson) sees Morgan as dilettante aiming for a high priced practice. Psychotherapist Dr. Diana Walton (Kathy Baker) clashes with Sturgess over his methods. Sam Abrams (Eli Wallach) is a gomer.
Director Howard Deutch tried to portray the chaos of the VA. He certainly threw everything including the kitchen sink into this movie and it feels overloaded. There are great actors but again, there are too many and it feels overloaded. There seems to be a great movie here somewhere but the chaos does overwhelm it. It needs gritty realism but it feels a little too sitcomy. -
Ishallwearpurple6 May 2013Article 99 (1992) Ray Liotta, Keifer Sutherland, Kathy Baker, Forest Whitaker, John Mahoney. Story about a group of doctors fighting the bureaucracy at a Veterans Hospital. When a patient needs a bypass operation but is given an Article 99, which is a denial of service letter, they get him admitted for something else and move him around until they can schedule the procedure. Keifer is the new yuppie doctor who is just going to serve his time before going into practice for himself. But he finds himself caring about an old vet who has been shifted around for a long time until he finally just wears out and dies. Very interesting film that is more relevant today than when it was released. Filmed in Kansas City, Missouri at an old hospital that was to be torn down, the scenery is gorgeous. On a hillside with the Liberty Memorial (the only WWI Memorial in the USA) down a long drive lined with maples in full fall color, it is a beautiful backdrop in contrast to the crowded and crumbling hospital. Cast are all very good. 7/10
-
This was a movie I really enjoyed watching. It on top of that had a first rate cast, with lots of big names in it. Too bad that the movie with its themes is too moralistic though. The movie tries to send out a message and tries to make a statement but it does this too forced with its sequences and distracting story-lines. Because of this it becomes totally unlikely, which causes it to simply not work out.
Nevertheless the movie is more or less still being saved by the fact that the movie does not pick a pure dramatic approach with its story but also at times a pure comical one, also with some of its characters. This of course makes the movie a pleasant one to watch, even though the story goes over-the-top at times. I also must add that most of the movie its comical feeling and moments also really work out thanks to mostly mainly the musical score from Danny Elfman.
What a great ensemble cast this movie has. A movie with a cast like deserved to be better known and seen by more. Ray Liotta, Kiefer Sutherland, Forest Whitaker, Lea Thompson, John C. McGinley, John Mahoney, Keith David, Eli Wallach, Lynne Thigpen, Troy Evans, Jeffrey Tambor, these are all some big names and they are all in this one film. You would expect that it perhaps is a bit overkill but all of the roles are well balanced out throughout the movie
The movie tries to tell an important story of the treatment of war veterans and their medical care once they've returned to the States, or rather said the lack of medical care and all of the red tape that goes with it. But basically the hospital sequences in the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" give a way better and more powerful image of this, even though it's not entirely about the same subject as this movie.
Problem with this movie is that it too badly wants to make a statement and send out a message. It sort of downgrades the movie but luckily the movie its entertainment still makes this a perfectly watchable one.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/ -
TED-2629 December 1998A good effort to support the cause of the veterans, which is much needed, but -- it trashes the DVA medical system. They have a daily battle of their own ... professionals vs. administrators. However, the system cannot exist without both. The movie overloads the poorest of possibilities, it exploits the "worst case (impossible) case scenrio. The DVA deserves better. The character portrayed by Keefer Southerland does himself well , and Southerland carries it off well. A good cast, a good story, a poor representation of the truth ... close, but not the truth.
-
There are many good things about this movie. There are a few that are not as "stellar" but no matter, when the subject is something as important as this, then that's what counts. (to those like user: Rick Peach that don't get it... read his reviews, and consider the source! This isn't an action movie!)
This is a movie about how shamefully the Veterans of our Armed Services are treated when it comes to medical care. The term Article 99 refers to when a serviceman/woman is told the care or operation they need will not be considered because it isn't a direct result of anything that occurred while actively serving. In a world where many countries have socialized health care for everyone- you would think here where capitalism rules the day, we could at LEAST take care of the people who have guaranteed our freedom and survival. And that is the message of this movie.
The way the message is conveyed is what we discuss movies for. The script can be at times overboard and some of Luther's (Keith David) pet phrases are trite, but he is the "been there, done that" man of the movie. He's seen it all and like a mascot of sorts, he seems to hang around the hospital ready to assist new patients who are lost in this bungling bureaucratic maze. Enter Travis (Troy Evans) a nice guy who just happens to need a triple bypass. When one of the men who is "Article 99'd" goes berserk and drives a pick up into the hospital, we see the main characters start to assert their personalities and their places in the hospital. Travis has a heart attack on the spot and it all unfolds from there.
Dr. Sturgess (Ray Liotta) is the voice of reason in this very illogical world. He is the head of a group of doctors (Forest Whitaker, Lea Thompson, John McGinley) who are there not for the money, but for "those who have borne the battle." They are joined by a well meaning Dr. Walton (Kathy Baker) a psychiatrist who chose to come to this place from a drug rehab clinic. Although inexperienced in the ways of this "jungle" she has her heart in the right place. The evil nemesis in all this is played by the administrator, Dr. Henry Dreyfoos (John Mahoney) who is more interested in counting q-tips than helping to ease the suffering and pain of the people for whom this place was built. His doctors have had to resort to stealing medical equipment and supplies from the departments experimenting on animals. Apparently a monkey can get a pacemaker, but not a Vet.
Some of the conditions in this hospital are deplorably shocking and terrible. There are the sick and dying and the forgotten. Also, there is the poignant relationship between the new intern, Dr. Morgan (Kiefer Sutherland) and his patient, Sam Abrams (Eli Wallach) as Dr. Morgan slowly realizes how special EACH of these people are. There is a story, a life and a sacrifice behind each bed pan, each IV, each tired old Vet.
Some of this movie is melodramatic and it may go to some extremes to make its point, but it is worth the watch. The performances by ALL are very good and it's a cast that's to die for. Even the smaller roles (Jeffery Tambor, Lynne Thigpen, Julie Bovasso) are so well cast. If for no other reason, watch it today and remember those who have given the "full measure of devotion" for us all. -
tinabugvi22 April 2021I know first hand this movie isn't too far off the mark.
-
mjneu595 November 2010There might be a good movie to be made about VA hospital neglect and mismanagement, but this certainly isn't it. The film has little to recommend it besides an attractive cast (all but invisible in their token, two-dimensional roles) and a screenplay written with obvious firsthand experience of medical red tape. Unfortunately, it was also written with every godawful comedy-drama cliché imaginable, making the film resemble a frustrated doctor's heroic third person fantasy of sex, action, gunfire, and bogus inspiration, none of it enough to distract viewers from the cardboard characters and strictly formula plot. Are all VA doctors this selfless, handsome, and good humored? And are all disabled veterans (including the maniac who drives his truck through the hospital lobby) so courageous and long-suffering? With a little more subtlety and black humor it might have been a worthwhile home front companion piece to Robert Altman's 'M*A*S*H*', but director Howard Deutch is more comfortable with crass exaggeration, limiting the film's appeal to an audience already force fed on a diet of TV ads and stale sitcoms.
-
Howard Deutsch's "Article 99" is a gripping satire about the Veteran Administration that is in charge of the health care for the men and women that served the country in foreign conflicts and who obviously, have no other means of getting health care. The film is more poignant to watch right now with the problems the country is facing in Iraq because today's soldiers fighting there might have to face the bureaucracy that rules what can, or cannot, be done to veterans without insurance, or money to pay for medical care.
We meet a group of dedicated doctors at a facility who are real professionals trying to go around the rules a tyrannical hospital administrator wants to impose on them. Thus, they will resort to stealing supplies that are denied to them in whatever form. It's an outrage to even think that medical care is denied to the people that were at the front lines to defend the country.
Ray Liotta is the best thing in the movie. His Dr. Sturgess is a maverick that can do things that others would not dare to do. Mr. Liotta gets a magnificent chance to shine as the idealistic doctor who will do anything to help his patients. Kiefer Sutherland appears as the young doctor assign to the hospital and has no clue what he has gotten into, but learns fast. Kathy Burke is also good as the doctor who opposes Sturgess' method, only to realize he was right all along. Among the staff we see familiar faces, Forest Whitaker, John McGinley, John Mahoney, Eli Wallach, Keith David, Julie Bovasso, Jeffrey Tambor and others that do ensemble acting in wonderful fashion under Mr. Deutsch's command.
The film is an eye opener as to how red tape rules a lot of government agencies. -
I didn't make it all the way through this movie, and that's a shame. The main issue "Article 99" attempts to address is an important one, one close to my heart because of several veteran relatives & friends. It shines an accusatory light on the sub-par (at best)treatment provided the men & women who served our country. Almost every single face we see in just the first 30 minutes belongs to an actor/actress who has garnered accolades in television (especially) or film. Kiefer Sutherland, Forest Whitaker, Eli Wallach... even the guy who plays "Frank" on "ER" (Troy Evans). Over the years I've enjoyed almost every single actor/actress in this movie. It's depressing to watch them all be crushed to death under the crappy dialog and undecided direction of "Article 99".
This movie tries to blend the seriously horrid state of care in VA hospitals with the chummy banter of their long-suffering, comrade-in-arms doctors and nurses. It does an abysmal job of it. The schlocky repartee detracts mightily from the issues it attempts to address. This is one of those movies you watch hoping it'll get better and puzzling over why things went so horribly wrong. -
vertigo_1419 May 2004Article 99 is a biting backlash against the absurd beauractic red tape preventing Veteran's hospital from dispensing much needed care to mounting numbers of patients. Faced with the endless parade of lost files and missing certification statements, hiding patients, and stealing medicine, these noble doctors do whatever it takes, defying a stubborn administrator and risking the vitality of their medical careers.
Good performances by all, particularly among Keifer Sutherland as the new doctor who is steadily learning the difficulties and trade-offs of working in a system so inexplicably and ineffectively bound by the system, experiencing this in his exchanges with an elderly patient named Sam (Eli Wallach). It is disgusting to see Sam, heralded a war hero and honored with a Silver Star, to be labeled a Gomer (patients who hang around the hospital on some unknown floor waiting to be approved for their respective treatments), only to die because the adminstrator restricted the funding so much that they couldn't perform the tests on him, leaving him to slowly die and the young doctor to scramble desperately to save his life, not being able to do much to help him, his hands tied by the system.
Keith David is excellent, too, here in another war-themed movie with John McGinnis, having previously co-starred together in 'Platoon.' David is "Luther," a disabled vet who acts as the source of reality, I suppose, of how the hospital operates, but is also a 'guardian angel' type as he protects the doctors who just want to take care of their damn patients. Luther, as evident in the finale, stages his own sort of war, one against the government when the hospital goes into lockdown, and it is not one he is willing to give up. Once fighting for his government, now his fighting against them. David also adds some good humor to the story, a bit of comic relief to this gloomy drama. Eli Wallach provides some of the same.
Ray Liotta, Kathy Baker, and John Mahoney likewise give good performances and it is the cast that really make this movie as good it is, propelled by an important story. -
michaelRokeefe26 July 2002This is a terse drama with its moments of comedy. Keifer Sutherland is a young doctor signing on at a Veteran's Hospital where Ray Liotta leads a renegade group of doctors going against hospital rules and lack of funds to provide help to ailing veterans. You won't get what you want...and what you do get ain't worth *#^t. That attitude is easy to take when you're a victim of Bureaucratic Red Tape. This is an eye opening movie, but not evocative of the majority of VA Hospitals. The very talented cast includes: Forest Whitaker, John Mahoney, Lea Thompson and Keith David. Along with Liotta, John C. McGinley and veteran actor Eli Wallach seem to add a special touch. Worthwhile even if it is sometimes stretching the boundaries of reality.
-
VernonPope22 June 2001the greatest casualty may be due to Red Tape. Not only does this film benefit from some true TALENT in the acting department, but Howard Deutch does a great job of portraying the sad state of Veteran's Care in the US. No, this does not appear to be "based on a true story," but it is typical of what goes on in the VA Hospitals; as a former Army Medic (now a Service Connected Disabled Vet) I know whereof I speak. I highly recommend this film!
-
jane-4220 July 2001This is clearly a film that has it's heart on it's sleeve and wants us
to get outraged about the injustice and 'red tape' that is holding up
our VA system. Made before the glut of hospital shows such as ER or
Chicago Hope, it features many of the same ideas and stories, but shot
in a better way. The camera work is fine in this film, much better than
either of those tv shows. The acting is too, for the most part. I felt
the film was stolen by the great Eli Wallach, who walks away with every
scene he's in. I ended up feeling sorry for Kiefer Sutherland who had to
share the screen with Wallach- it was like watching a kid play
basketball with Michael Jordan. Ray Liotta does a fine intense job, and
the supporting roles are all wonderful. The great Kathy Baker is all but
wasted, but does a great job. Lynn Thigpen has a small role, but does
it with her usual dignity and grace. Kieth David, John Mahoney and
Jeffrey Tambor all bless us with their talents, and I ended up wishing
the movie focused more on them than on the 'pretty young things'. If
anything does not work with this film I'd have to say it was the
directing or the editing- for some reason it doesn't come together in a
satisfying way, despite some fine performances. Also, I'd just recently
seen M*A*S*H*, which sets the bar pretty high for this kind of movie.
And not to compare apples and oranges, but if you're looking for a
'things are screwy in the medical profession' film, M*A*S*H* would be
the best way to go. -
I was surprised when I found this movie as it's a bit forgotten today despite having a cast of famous actors of those years. And when I finished it I was shocked at how much I liked it since despite its subject it had also some very funny moments.
In the beginning Pat Travis (Troy Evans, who is a bit forgotten today) is a military veteran that one day leaves his farm house as he has to go to a VA hospital. Once there, he finds a chaotic labirint of crazy obstacles and various funny characters. Luther (Keith David) is a veteran forced on a wheelchair used to the dysfunction in the place and he tells Pat ''There is always Article 99''. This is also Dr. Peter Morgan (Kiefer Sutherland)'s first day. He soon meets doctors Ruby Bodrick (John C. McGinley), Richard Sturgess (Ray Liotta) and Sid Handleman (Forest Whitaker) that take him under their wings and are surgeons who do unapproved operations. Nurse Robin van Dorn (Lea Thompson, Lorraine from BACK TO THE FUTURE) is a bit disgruntled towards Peter because she sees him as a dilettante. After a while Morgan rallies Luther and all the other veterans and they plan on a hostile takeover at the hospital for attending the patients without the administration's interference. Luther menaces the police with Polasky's automatic rifle and the police can't remove the veterans as the hospital is under federal jurisdiction. Soon the press arrives and the FBI goes there for assessing the situation. Under Luther's command, the veterans drop a massive banner in the hospital with written ''No surrender''. After they win this first battle, after a while there is another one as the new director wants to keep the old policies. Morgan and Sturgess will organize the last stand.
This film is like a document movie as it tackles the subject of what could happen if bureaucracy would rule supreme: there would be lack of medical equipment even for serious situations, the hospitals would be over-crowded (with long queues obviously) and many patients would risk their lives. What I liked most was the unintentional humour that came in three moments that I'll mention: 1) When Shooter Polaski drives to the hospital's entrance and starts a shooting rampage as he complains about a article 99 issue (2) When Luther is on an upper floor and two nurses want to take him back in his room but since he is in a wheelchair he grabs them with his arms and swirls them around in the corridory (3) When the veterans plan their rebellion and they scare the s**t out of the policemen and FBI agents in various ways as the officers try to break in,
While this is an underrated movie, it should be rediscovered for the subject and its cast, and I would recommend it also for the funny moments. And I just can't believe that it has a score of 6,1 as I am writing this review. -
deanofrpps21 February 2006Once upon a time in the Reagan administration, a cog in the cabinet discovered to his amazement that with all the US veterans floating out there from the abysmal failure in Vietnam, the sheer cost of treating them as they aged would skyrocket.
Thus it was decided to abolish their problems. See in Bushist America we ignore any problem that we don't want to face.
The movie brings up a valid point. The VA has failed in its mission. And the situation from the time the movie was released has worsened. With 80,000 in treatment from the latest war the issues raised by this movie are ones that need to be addressed.
Regrettably by reading some hijinx from M * A * S * H into the civil service bureaucracy of the VA and creating a feel good ending the scriptwriters muted the very point they'd like to have made.
I gave this a ******* 3 ******** for all its comic but unfunny unrealism. The movie compares with John Q for the unrealistic expectations foisted upon the viewer.
It's betterto Tell it like it is than to pretend a social problem is getting better! -
Article 99 displays a side of the medical profession seldom seen by society. The humor and over the top antics of the doctors, although extremely over done, are only the surface. Ray Liota's performance as the struggling ring leader of a rag tag group of vigilante doctors was not only strong, but honest. His ability to stay in character the entire time was a difficult feat, but he pulls it off sincerely. Kiefer Sutherland's performance was as equally well portrayed as Liota's, even though Sutherland's character is the polar opposite of Liota's. His portrayal of an upper class, arrogant, young intern was right on the money. However, it is not just their great performances, but the supporting cast is equally as fantastic. The dialogue is full of well written and delivered witty banter and the cast seem to play off each other well, but there is a serious under tone to the humor. The VA hospital in which all these caring individuals work is suffering badly from governmental cutbacks, a crooked administration and red tape as far as the eye can see. For those who are able to understand or "get this" film, it is a funny, poignant yet honest look at a different side of the medical field. In other words, this ain't ER or Chicago Hope, it's a whole new ball game.
-
schell-78 January 2012We were out with new colleagues looking for a movie to go to after dinner. Our search took us from Wisconsin into Illinois, where "Article 99" appeared to be the most promising offering in a mall multiplex in the Waukegan area. The film was stunningly unmoving, unaffecting, unmemorable--the night such a complete waste that I simply had to bring back the title to confirm a long repressed memory (it was only the recollection of Kiefer Sutherland's credit that produced the title).
There are a lot of possibilities with a film like this, which apparently attempts to be "socially relevant" humor or, as other reviewers have put it, a film with an important message. I don't buy the notion that great art--Shakespeare's plays or Faulkner's fiction--succeeds because of any "message," and the same pretty much goes for mere "entertainment." But whether realizing Welles' description of film as a "ribbon of dreams" or Godard's as "truth 24 frames per second," a film can make us participants in its storyline, situations, and conflicts while fulfilling the most important goal of art--i.e. to present an imitation of life that reveals us to ourselves-- and even imparting a sort of "message" (though I prefer Joycean "epiphany"), but we hear too many messages. The purpose of art is to make them unnecessary by giving us the "knowledge" to see for, and about, ourselves. "Article 99" succeeded in none of the foregoing areas. A film with as noteworthy a similar precedent as "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" simply left us numb, indifferent and apathetic, quickly flying out our memories.
If a lesson is to be learned from viewing a movie such as this (and it's important to watch bad movies to know what a good movie is, or bad Altman films to know what a good Altman film is), it's that the setting matters little if the director's vision and approach or the screenplay's storyline doesn't "make" it matter. And in this film--apparently intent upon exposing the futility of practices occurring in a V.A. hospital--setting is everything. But the setting is cramped, collapsed, squeezed so tightly by an over-burdened script implemented by unimaginative, propaganda-grade direction that neither the audience nor the actors have any space to breathe in let alone become involved with the actions of the story.
Contrast this over-controlled environment, this anal, sterile, feeble imitation of life in a V.A. hospital with Robert Altman's "controlled extemporaneousness," or imaginative vision, that gave us a completely open, vibrant and real, alternately funny, sad, and awe-inspiring, complex and unforgettable movie about a place that is also the title of the film--"Nashville." Not only are we taken on an unforgettable journey through a diverse city but we come to know and empathize with no fewer than 24 characters who are working out their destinies in the city that even now serves as a microcosm of American mass popular culture, representing all those seeking fame and fortune, celebrity and success. Ultimately, perhaps because in every viewer there's a hidden desire to be significant, to be "star" (if only in the eyes of his or her creator), we learn something about ourselves, emerging sadder but wiser for the experience. At such a moment, you also begin to see why some of us would rather read Shakespeare than Stephen King (or, after seeing "Nashville," have no patience with an Altman "dud" like "Ready to Wear," a satire of the fashion world that by the mere choice of subject is inextricably weighed down by the director's failure of vision). -
jan-adlington-223 February 2005This film was made in 1992 but i only heard about it when i saw that it was on FX channel last night (22 Feb 2005). Ray Liotta was a goody which i'd never seen before, and he was great. The story is about low paid doctors trying their best to provide war veterans a complete medical service of treatment (including psychiatric) and operations. The hospital is overcrowded, understaffed,underfunded and under-supplied of medical provisions. The film takes us through the trials and tribulations of the underhanded tricks they pull to get provisions and perform operations on the needy Vets. The uncaring chief Administrator, wants the hospital run by the book, which does not include certain types of treatment and operations. Indeed, it seems like he doesn't think there should be patients in his hospital at all! - so of course, they have the expected run-ins with him. Plenty of famous faces as patients, a little bit of romance, humour in the right places and an exciting climax, complete this great drama - well worth watching. I'll be getting the video i think!
-
Peach-216 November 1998I really don't understand this film at all. I guess it's trying to make a political statement of some kind. It seems like an action movie in some regards and it never really gets to a valid point. Avoid.
-
lackey_ronald15 January 2006I wish that I could agree with the above poster, but unfortunately I can't. First of all Article 99 was a great movie, great cast, and an overall great attempt to put a face on the plight of all our veterans that are in need of medical care. The only flaw in the movie is that there is usually no one that will take a stand and fight for our veterans. From overcrowded hospitals, to canceled benefits, fraud and abuse from a system that is flawed and useless. I watched my grandfather go through the agonies of slowly dying from lack of care, without any dignity, my friends and now myself. I wish that I could say that it is an isolated case, and/or an isolated hospital, but since I have been to 4 VA Hospitals in three different states, it is not an isolated case and/or an isolate hospital. I know we hear it all the time, another veteran crying that he is not being taken care of my only question is when is someone going to listen and change the system that created the word "red tape."
-
rosalee_adams5 August 2017I lay on a gurney in a passageway of the local VAMC ER & two doctors passed by and one asked the other "Have you seen Article 99?" "NO" "It was about vets who take over a VA because of care provided...It was hilarious." I had to bite my tongue to not shout "YOUR attitude is reflective of too many who work in VA...DOKTOR"
My mother's brothers, who were combat vets, said they would not enter the local VA because they did not to be carried out feet first I am convinced many 'physicians' in VA are there because they cannot do anything else.
I find it interesting that many on here apparently feel just entertainment and 'what a classic,' For men and women who have served it is not entertainment, nor is it classic. It is a reality.