Like Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H, Article 99 aspires to be another anti-establishment film, rallying not against the Army itself, but instead the Veterans Administration, that sometimes shady mountain of bureaucracy, red tape, and steadfast inefficiency that purports to assist American vets with their medical needs. Unlike Altman’s film, though, director Deutch (Pretty in Pink, Some Kind of Wonderful) takes the easy way out, stuffing his film with flat characters, stock situations, and ill-timed, unleavened gags that are reminiscent of the worst episodes of the M*A*S*H television show. Conscience and humor collide in all the wrong ways, and the result is less funny than it is annoying, less conscionable than it is embarrassing. Liotta plays Dr. Sturgess, an idealistic young doctor struggling to work within the confines of a system (the V.A.) seemingly determined to ignore the needs of its patients in favor of cost-cutting. Liotta has always made good use of his strong, forceful on-screen personality, as he does here, but in Article 99, he comes across as being hopelessly miscast — a good-looking prettyboy with a heart as big as the colossal, dreary hospital he works for. Sutherland, as the new doc in town, fares much better, thrust into a situation he can not understand, dark circles highlighting his bewildered eyes. Along with fellow cohorts in guerrilla medicine, Whittaker, McGinley and Thompson, Sutherland and Liotta tackle the system head-on, performing unauthorized surgeries, scuttling administrative procedure, and running “midnight requisitions” to obtain necessary equipment. It all sounds like a lark, and it all sounds like M*A*S*H, but in truth, it’s not. Article 99, for all it’s Nineties feel-good warmth and anti-establishment rhetoric, is just another Hollywood stab at legit, concerned filmmaking, and a bad one at that. There’s no edge, no heart, and the damn thing is brain-dead to begin with.
This article appears in March 20 • 1992 (Cover).