"This summer...hold on to your crown...The Queen rules again bitches!" Yes, Variety is reporting that writer Peter Morgan is working on a follow-up to last year's Oscar-winning hit, The Queen. The Queen was a very British story, but this time he's bringing America into the mix, specifically Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The new film will deal with their relationships to Prime Minster Tony Blair (played wonderfully in The Queen by Michael Sheen, who is expected to return for the sequel). The film "will focus on Blair's reaction to the handover of power between Clinton, a natural liberal ally, and Bush, who came from the other end of the political spectrum." The project will actually be the third in Morgan's series of films about Blair, which began with the Channel 4 telepic The Deal.

The most intriguing aspect of this film might just be its casting. Who can effectively capture the good old boy charisma and charm of Bill Clinton? John Travolta did a very nice job playing a highly Clintonesque character in Primary Colors. I sure wish Phil Hartman was still alive (for a variety of reasons), I don't think anyone's nailed Clinton better, and I always sensed Hartman could have easily handled drama. Who can get across the thick layer of bluster, blind confidence, and -- what's a nice word? -- naivete present in a George W. Bush speech? Something tells me they won't go the Will Ferrell route. My pick for Dubya would be the great William H. Macy, he's got the "shifty dude whose world is crumbling around him" thing down pat. What do you guys think? Assuming they don't go with unknowns, who would you cast as two of the most recognizable figures in politics -- Bush and Clinton?

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.