FredThompson Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Just in time for the new Die Hard sequel, Live Free or Die Hard (or, as its called in the UK and elsewhere, Die Hard 4.0), my favorite film cynic, Guardian Unlimited columnist Joe Queenan, has given us a review of the first three movies. Rather than recap the actual plots of Die Hard, Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Die Hard: With a Vengeance, though, Queenan focuses on reminding us of the deaths and damages of the franchise, most of which he claims would have gotten Bruce Willis's character in a lot of trouble, or at least mixed up in a lot of red tape. Of course, this is has been a joke about action movies for over twenty years now; plenty of parodies have knocked the fact that heroes cause more destruction than should be necessary. But Queenan points out one serious issue with the second Die Hard film that I had forgotten. Willis' John McClane pretty much causes the deaths of more than 230 innocent people, including passengers of a crashed jet plane, which is downed by a terrorist who doesn't like McClane's taunting.

As usual, Queenan is taking the movies too seriously (though I'm sure he doesn't really; its just for the story). The fact that McClane is an everybody who saves the day and faces no consequences is part of the fantasy of action films of the era. Critics have pondered the genre as everything from male empowerment following women's rights to individual empowerment following the failure of Vietnam and/or amidst an age of global threats, be they communist or terrorist. But basically action movies, and the Die Hard movies especially, are an all-of-the-above fantasy about what we'd all hope to be able to do if placed in the worst possible situation. Sure, they give a promise of implausible and impossible solutions, but I don't think many people have tried to single-handedly defeat hijackers or other bad guys because of what has been seen in the movies (I guess you could suggest the passengers on United 93, but that would be an honorable exception).

Following Thursday's seemingly impulsive, and rather premature response from Sicko producer Meghan O'Hara, I was hoping that Michael Moore himself would issue a more intelligent statement regarding his being investigated by the U.S. Treasury Department because of a controversial trip he took to Cuba in March. Nope. After at least a day to think about it, he has written an open letter that is pretty much as unrestrained and immature as O'Hara's, but it is much longer. And it is addressed to (and probably already sent to) Secretary Henry Paulson of the Treasury Dept. Oops.

In the letter, Moore accuses the investigation of being a personal attack from the Bush Administration, and basically the document is just a long rant against the President, his ties to the health care industry, his abuse of the government and his mistreatment of 9/11 heroes. He also mentions Presidential candidate Fred Thompson and the New York Post as having triggered the investigation with their misleading information regarding the Cuba trip. He does use the opportunity to defend his case a little, though, and he has a few childish points. One is that the Administration knew of his plans to go to Cuba, but waited until a time nearer to SiCKO's release date to begin the investigation. Another is that he has broken no laws and has nothing to hide because it is not illegal to help your fellow man.

Well, I think he might be wrong about that last statement, especially if helping your fellow man includes supplying him with goods or services from Cuba. But, whatever, this is a movie blog, so I'll let the political sites discuss his guilt or innocence. I just find it interesting how Moore can be so public with his business, especially as it regards one of his films. Considering most movie companies have legal teams to protect them from such controversy, it is always a wonder if Moore really thinks this kind of move is a good marketing strategy. After all, didn't The Weinstein Co. just hire him two spin doctors for this sort of ordeal? Or is this incident more personally related to Moore than the film, so they won't be coming to his defense. Somebody needs to rescue Moore from himself sometimes.

For more on Sicko, check out some recently released art and photos.