Mr Deja, who is gay and worked on The Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast said to News.com.Au:

“Is there ever going to be a family that has two dads or two mums? Time will tell. I think once they [Disney chiefs] find the right kind of story with that kind of concept, they will do it. It has to be the right kind of story and you have to find that first.”

Despite Disney’s conservative reputation, Disney World and Disneyland host annual Gay Day parades and last year the studio appointed Hollywood’s first openly gay studio chief, Rich Ross.

Polish-born Mr Deja also pointed out to the website that various Disney characters come from unconventional family set-ups, referring to Cinderella’s step-family, the orphaned Bambi or Aladdin growing up on the streets.

Though he added: “We are going to stay with family audiences and basically continue to do what Walt Disney tried to do.”

Pixar Studios, a subsidiary of Disney, last year featured LGBT members of their animation teams in a series of “It Gets Better” videos, which seek to offer hope to LGBT teenagers.

The talk will be held by south London writer Stephen Bourne, author of Brief Encounters: Lesbians & Gays in British Cinema 1930-1971. Some of the luminaries of the medium are also represented in the Gallery’s Collection, including Anthony Asquith, Dirk Bogarde, Mary Morris, Kenneth Williams and Derek Jarman.

The talk comes just prior to the opening of the 25th London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival and will take place on Thursday 24 March at 1.15pm. It is free to all.

Sam (Tobey Maguire) and his younger brother Tommy played by the star of gay cowboy film Brokeback Mountain, Jake Gyllenhaal couldn’t be more dissimilar. The elder is a Marine who is off for a fourth tour of duty in Afghanistan, whilst Tommy has just come out of jail where he was serving time for armed robbery. Their lives, morals and attitudes are at complete odds with one another but they both find redemption and hope in Sam’s wife, Grace (Natalie Portman). Sam needs the reassurance of stability and the memories of his family to remain strong when the Taliban captures him. Tommy helps Grace with household maintenance whilst Sam is absent – his way of making amends for his past behaviour. With Sam missing, presumed dead, the two cling to each emotionally in order to cope with the situation. A passionate kiss finally releases some of the tension that has been building up between them but it’s difficult to ascertain whether Grace is falling for Tommy or whether she craves human contact and reassurance on the assumption that her husband is dead.

This is a highly charged and emotionally draining film that challenges so many of our perceptions of the human condition. The dynamics of the various different relationships offer so much in the way of cinematic fulfilment that it’s easy to dismiss the harrowing back-story as simply a means to an end. However, it is the chilling events that take place during Sam’s captivity that really mould the latter part of the film and determine how all three characters will act and relate to each other on his eventual return.

There is guilt and resentment on all sides and it’s hard to imagine a return to anything resembling a normal life for any of the characters. Grace’s daughters show the effect that all issues relating to war can have on children and how quickly children can pick up on a situation and react to it. Sam is faced with the apparently irrefutable fact that his brother and his wife have been sleeping together, his brother muscling in on his family while he struggled for survival and sanity in captivity. The film is actually based on an earlier Danish film but the quality acting and directing will ensure that it is a credible release in its own right.

Mary is a hapless nerd who also happens to be single. When she is set up on a blind date with a CNN cameraman, she becomes obsessed with the fact that he’s her soul mate and seems completely oblivious to the fact that he clearly doesn’t have the same warm, cosy feelings about her. This marks the beginning of the road trip element of this mediocre Hollywood offering that adds yet another average barrel of laughs to the already saturated pile of romantic comedies that are released with increasing regularity.

Mary proceeds to follow Steve the cameraman around the country, as he tries to press on with his pressing work commitments. Rather than being put off by his obvious evasiveness, Mary takes this as encouragement and she becomes even more obsessed and convinced that he is the only man for her. The only sign she has that it’s not a completely fruitless mission is the encouragement she gets from Hartman – a news reporter who enjoys getting his own back on Steve for the hassle he gets from him on a daily basis. It’s hardly the kind of sign that most women would take to continue following a failed blind date around the countryside but then Mary is no ordinary woman. Her increasingly erratic behaviour takes its toll on Steve but when she falls down a mineshaft the story takes a different turn, with emotions being turned on their head. Steve begins to see Mary in a different light but slight pangs of remorse are not exactly the basis for a meaningful relationship.

All About Steve is a light, fluffy film with little required in the way of concentration or mental interaction from the viewer. Some will laugh, some will cringe but most people will just let it wash over them in a wave of indifference.

As the audience follows Man (Viggo Mortensen) and Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) on their desperate voyage to reach the ocean and hopefully connect with other survivors of the unmentioned disaster, it is almost possible to feel the filth, cold, desperation and fear. The world created is a grey, lawless, ravaged land of lost souls and lost morals and the man and boy, who are the nameless father and son, struggle on like moths searching for a mythical light.

Although the storyline veers slightly away from the original, it is a pretty true screen adaptation that succeeds in bringing alive the characters and landscapes of the book. Mortensen is such an obvious choice for the role that the part could have been written specifically for him. His dogged determination to save himself and his child from the marauding gangs and the chaos of the ravaged world are so symbolic of every parent’s greatest fears for their offspring that the film works on many levels. At it’s most straightforward it is dramatic thriller but it speaks volumes about the world we live in, the journey we have inadvertently set out on and the resolutions we all hope to achieve in our lives.

This is the kind of film that comes back to haunt you on nights when you can’t sleep but not in a skeleton-in-the-cupboard kind of way. It raises so many questions about morality and humanity that it won’t just entertain you and leave you alone. However, although it is largely a dark indictment of the state of the world, there is also hope; a glimmer of goodness and an overwhelming belief in the strength of human love and the bonds that people create. The man and boy draw on each other’s strengths and compensate for each other’s weaknesses in their combined desire to overcome the horrors of the world and their journey. When all else fails, humans must rely on each other.

Jane (Streep) is an independent divorcée with a prosperous bakery business and three independent kids. She has a harmonious relationship with her ex-husband (Baldwin) so when their son graduates they have no problem with the other also attending the ceremony. However, far from just being civil to each other, they find themselves attracted to each other once again, as they share a cosy dinner. One thing inevitably leads to another and the couple end up back in a relationship. This would be ideal if it wasn’t for one small problem: Jack remarried in the ten years since the divorce and Jane now finds herself having an affair with her ex-husband. As if this wasn’t enough to contend with, another man also takes her fancy and this is Steve Martin’s cue to make his mark on the film, which he duly does. Commissioned to design a new kitchen for Jane, the two seem like a great match and it could be the start of something special – if it weren’t for the sordid affair.

This is a classic Meyers film that once again explores the nature of relationships and she excels at this quirky style of character analysis. There are sufficient twists and turns to keep the plot moving along nicely and the quality of the acting ensures that the film never resorts to cheesy clichés or run-of-the-mill situational comedy. Meyers seems to have an innate understanding of the female perspective and is keen to explore the psyche behind women’s decision making with regards to a variety of different relationship scenarios. Each film she makes comes from a fresh approach and angle and each seems to have something to say, no matter that it is wrapped up in a light-hearted, comedic context.

This mockumentary charts the travels of Brüno, a gay Austrian culture and fashion presenter, as he moves from offensive act to offensive act with little breathing space in between. Those familiar with Da Ali G show will know him as having a relatively minor, but hilarious, part in the TV show. He also featured in a series of shorts for the Paramount Comedy Channel.

In the course of shooting Brüno, Baron Cohen performed a number of stunts, some quite breathtaking in their audacity. One such event saw the presenter interview former presidential candidate, Ron Paul. After a staged technical incident, Brüno took Paul to a different room and began dancing before stripping off in front of the outraged politician. It’s stunts like this that define Brüno as totally unique, and the flinch-inducing reality of many of the situations will make or break the film for you. If you’ve got an open mind when it comes to comedy, this will no doubt have you doubled over in laughter, otherwise, you may find yourself confused as to what exactly everyone in the cinema is laughing at.

Where Borat highlighted the prejudices of America in light of race and religion, Brüno does the same with homosexuality. Both of these angles are clearly more fruitful in the south of the states, so much of the film takes place in those places where reactions are most fierce, leading to some truly side-splitting scenes.

Brüno embarrasses a number of interviewees across diverse locations such as fashion shows, military bootcamps and talk shows. While a majority of the situations degenerate into Cohen’s particular brand of slapstick, in each circumstance it’s difficult to miss his acute awareness of exactly which buttons to press and when.

Looking past the comedy, there are many points at which Brüno makes the kind of social commentary that you would normally associate with Michael Moore. However, Cohen’s movements don’t extend to synopsizing and concluding, making it a fantastically clever and insightful look at the nature of prejudice

A vast majority of Baron Cohen’s exploits as Brüno are there solely to elicit the kind of embarrassed shock that Borat delivered, but as the tag line says, “Borat was so 2006,” and Bruno is, if anything a more outlandish version of Baron Cohen’s humour. He’s the only person doing this kind of comedy at the moment. Brüno will undoubtedly bring a number of reactions from embarrassment to laughter to the self-beratement of laughing at the awkwardness of others.

How you feel the pubescent dynamics – between Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), Hermione (Emma Watson), Ginny (Bonnie Wright) and Lavender Brown (Jesse Cave) – work isn’t necessarily essential to the enjoyment you’ll get from the story, as the narrative maintains as much pace as ever across the series of books. Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) efforts to dominate and destroy both the muggle and wizard world are becoming ever more desperate and making the previously secure Hogwarts increasingly dangerous. The teaming of Dumbledore and Potter is one that we’ve seen before, but the Half Blood Price sees the pair link together in a more dynamic capacity to weaken Voldemort.

This iteration deals greatly with the origins and motivations of Voldemort. Having split his soul in the pursuit of immortality, the forces of good are tasked to identify and find six horcruxes, many of which are referenced or seen in the previous films. With the aid of a new character to the series, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), Dumbledore and Potter move a step closer to the final battle with Voldemort, but not without cost to all at Hogwarts.

Rowling’s sixth book has a multitude of revelations for those who haven’t read the tome, including the identity of the titular Half Blood Prince and the machinations of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). The more human side of the story covering the interplay of burgeoning romances doesn’t interfere with what is essentially an action extravaganza, making it a great all round viewing experience.

While the special effects, comical interludes and smiles are all present, the Half Blood Prince shows us a darker side of Hogwarts in the run up to the final piece of J.K. Rowling’s modern classic. Young adults will no doubt find the cleverly woven character relationships somewhat closer to their hearts than most, but not to the detriment of the overall story. The Half Blood Prince can be seen not only as part of a seven-strong series of books, but as a prologue to the Deathly Hallows. Obviously a must see for the fans, and one which, if you were disappointed by the lengthy delays last year, nothing will keep you from enjoying.

All this changes as Tate’s Canadian lineage comes back to haunt her and she is threatened with deportation. A little swift thinking and the timely interruption from Paxton lead to the announcement that the two, hotshot editor in chief and P.A. are to get married, much to the latter’s chagrin. Both sides are blackmailed by the other, and the end result is the two agree to a stalemate marriage and quickie divorce shortly afterwards. One thing gets in the way though: love.

This classic Summer rom-com makes good use of the conventions of the genre with plenty of awkward situations between the two, made ever more enjoyable by the leads’ cuteness. The conflict is offered by Department of Immigration official, Mr. Gilbertson, who scrutinizes the pair’s relationship in their short engagement period.

A majority of the action takes place in the sleepy Alaskan backwater of Sitka, where Paxton’s family have gathered to celebrate the matriarchal granny’s (Betty White) 90th birthday. What follows is a mish-mash of Meet The Fokkers, Green Card and While You were Sleeping, as the couple attempt to lie and deceive their way to Tate’s extended visa. The Paxton family is a string of amusing characters from the male stripper to the girl Paxton left behind when he moved to the Big Apple. Their reactions to the surprising pairing, and uncomfortable warmth to Tate form a solid backdrop to the knowing nods, winks and antics between Tate and Paxton.

The Proposal is undeniably one of the sweetest rom-coms around at the moment, and with plenty of interaction between the lead characters, as well as the inclusion of an aging, but no less comically potent, Betty White as the grandmother and an adorable white puppy dog tailing the pair throughout their stay in Sitka, it’s loaded up with feelgood juice. Of course, the pair begin to fall in love, and with only the hawkish Mr. Gilbertson offering any threat to the couple, the comedy is balanced well with the romance.

The big change comes when Pippa (Robin Wright Penn) and the aging Herb (Alan Arkin) move into a retirement home. The cracks that have been plastered over for almost the entirety of Pippa’s life begin to show with this move, and Pippa falls apart with startling rapidity. This leads her to confide in her neighbour’s son, Chris (Keanu Reeves), and begin telling the tale of the titular lives, plural, of Pippa Lee.

Occurring over a number of decades, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee are an intriguing package of the surreal, comic and emotive. As Pippa grows up, you are introduced to the somewhat tragic mother figure (Maria Bello), who’s scatty, maniacal life becomes too much for the teenaged Pippa (Blake Lively), causing her to run away from home into the arms of her aunt, who’s life is even stranger than her mothers. The pairing of Pippa’s Aunt, Trish (Robin Weigert) and her lesbian girlfriend Kat (Julianne Moore) are amongst the funniest in the film, as their S&M business offers a bright interlude from the oft miserable chaos of Pippa’s life. During Pippa’s breakdown, the comedy continues, as she begins sleepwalking into a number of very odd situations and activities.

Pippa Lee is shown in so many lights, and her assertion that she is an interesting person is borne out by the various trials and challenges the film brings to the fore. The movement through the ages is helped by a number of eccentric wardrobe choices that will no doubt have you shying away from the screen in disgust as you realize you once had a very similar blouse or hair-do. Similarly, the score reflects the ages of Pippa Lee particularly well, and evokes the decades well.

The Private Lives of Pippa Lee has a quiet story to tell, and it tells is with a combination of comedy, misery and good cheer. It will touch a number of people for whom the tale rings true, and even if it doesn’t, the completeness and economy with which it’s told will endear Pippa Lee to many more.

He is an honourable appointment and all eyes are on his rise to presidential success. He’s the future of his political party, and as the chairman of a committee assigned to oversee defence spending, he’s got all the right connections. As the presidential race draws near, Washington insiders begin to speculate that Collins will earn his party’s nomination for the country’s top job.

However, the prospect of Collins becoming president seems less and less likely, when his research assistant/mistress is viciously murdered, and some buried secrets begin to surface.

Collins was once a close friend to Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who is now a top reporter in the nation’s capital. Assigned the task of investigating Collins by his ruthless editor, Cameron (Helen Mirren), McAffrey recruits fellow reporter Della (Rachel McAdams) in order to track down the truth and identify the killer.

The dubious fortune of both an old friendship with Collins and the need to investigate takes McAffrey into new territory – a cover-up that threatens to shake the nation‘s power structures. And in a town of spin–doctors and wealthy politicos, he will discover one truth: when billions are at stake, no one‘s integrity, love or life is ever safe.

Crowe works well in the part (indeed, he makes it hard to imagine Cal as Brad Pitt, who was originally cast), and he brings in some superb acting skills particularly when he realises what he might be getting into: at one point, Cal realises, with a shock, that he’s just rapped on the wrong door — well, the right one — and viewers can see and feel his fear, which turns his smooth talking into stuttering.
 
Although it isn’t quite conceivable that the fresh-faced President-to-be was a close friend to this caricature of a journalist, there is a wealth of chemistry between the other characters.

The script does a good job of condensing what was originally a BBC series and maintaining a buzz of urgency throughout to ensure a thriller of excellent quality.

The back story begins in what we are apparently to accept as standard, canonical Trek continuity. From there, the vengeful Romulan Nero passes through a black hole and arrives in this new movie’s universe – or, as we are specifically told, into the past of the same universe. And it is at this moment that, as Doc Brown would have it, time skews off at a tangent. A new timeline is formed, and this timeline is the one on which this particular movie hangs.

The moment of divergence for this new timeline is, rather conveniently, the day that James Tiberius Kirk is born. The events of the day, in which the time travelling Romulans play a major part, are shown to be incredibly significant in Kirk’s future.

Literally, this is the beginning. Audiences to this revised Trek quite literally get to pick up the very end of a new thread and start tracking the weave from there.
Somewhere in the middle of the film, the time loop trickery is addressed in dialogue. Knowing that their destinies have been altered, the characters make explicit mention of how their lives are now going to take very different paths to those they would otherwise have followed..

There’s a reason why this reboot succeeds, and it’s embodied by James Tiberius Kirk. The Star Trek universe desperately needs Kirk, and everything that he represents. It needs his wild abandon, his reckless dynamism, his pulsing virility.

Without him, and his kind, it became moribund, and fell out of favour. By resurrecting him, JJ Abrams has revived and revitalised Star Trek,.

The triumvirate of Kirk, Spock and McCoy were the cornerstone of this universe and while we grew fond of the likes of Picard, Data and even Trip Tucker, no-one ever truly eclipsed them. Why would you choose to make a Trek movie without those three, if you could?. All you have to do is cast the right people – which is what Abram’s did.

So is the film faithful to the old guard? In many cases it is as faithful as you could reasonably expect – although the script does rewrite history. Thanks to the alternate timeline, the heroes’ destinies are irrevocably changed. Year zero. Clean slate. And seeing those accumulated centuries of established continuity crumble into dust doesn’t feel like a betrayal – it feels like a liberation. From now on, we really are boldly going where no man has gone before. Anything could happen – and sometimes does (you won’t believe what Spock and Uhura get up to…).

There’s another reason this film is a triumph- it has passion. This is a film full of people who hurt, and it’s capable of hurting you . This Enterprise crew disagree with one another. They fight. They say “bullshit!” They scream their heads off when chased by CGI monsters, and when confronted by a visitor from the future, they enquire, “Do they still have sandwiches there?” They’re vital and funny and therefore we recognise them as people, real people, just like us.

There will be those who say the movie isn’t faithful to the original Star Trek but so be it. What has been created is a new format that will enthral children and adults alike – and will ensure that Star Trek will live long and prosper, where it could so easily have ebbed away.

He and his wife, Clarice (Taraji P. Henson) are past the honeymoon point of their marriage and the love they once had for each other is being tested. Clarice can’t resist nitpicking at Dave about buying a better truck, spending time coaching his little league team and letting him know at every opportunity that she is the primary breadwinner. She not only makes more money than her husband, she has also recently been named salesperson of the year.
Dave is also impatient to start a family after ten years of marriage, while materialistic Clarice just wants to make more money in order to be able to continue to afford to live in the lap of luxury.
It doesn’t help that Dave barely has a relationship with his mother-in-law Mary (Jenifer Lewis) who hardly gives him credit for anything and constantly uses her influence over Clarice to drive a wedge between them.

As their marriage begins to fall apart, they argue with one another and, during one of those arguments, Dave has a car accident with her in the passenger seat.

That car accident leaves her seriously injured at the hospital and requiring physical therapy, but Dave miraculously only leaves with a few scratches and bruises. At the hospital, he bumps into Clarice’s mother, Mary (Jenifer Lewis), who blames him for the accident claiming that if he weren’t in rush to get home from work, it wouldn’t have happened.

Clarice doesn’t have the courage to stand up to her overprotective, controlling mother, though, and lets her how to deal with her husband. Why can’t Dave and Clarice just talk like two mature, open adults? Dave almost goes through a midlife crisis when he meets Julie (Maeve Quinlan), Clarice’s physical therapist who also happens to be the mother of one of the children who Dave coaches. She also happens to be attractive, single and flirtatious with him.

Thus, “Can this marriage be saved?” is the question at the heart of the film. And although there are humorous asides, they in no way interfere with the ability of the modern parable to drive home a message about the sanctity of marriage.

Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are an unlikely coupling brought together by the fact that Rudd’s Peter Klaven – a smartly dressed estate agent who is known more for his womanising than his nights out with the boys – is getting married, but has no best man.

The diminutive Rudd and the gangly Segel – who plays Sydney- strike an appropriate physical contrast for comedy. They are an odd couple, which means they are already set up to be a box office success.
When his fiancee seems alarmed by the fact that he has no male friends who might do the duty at their nuptials, Peter embarks on a mission to find a pal.
Egged on by his intended (Rashida Jones, a star from the American version of The Office) and her girlfriends, he anxiously embarks on an excruciating series of set-up ‘man dates’ with losers, loners and, inevitably, in a rendezvous of crossed wires and mixed signals, the hopeful gay guy who thinks Pete is looking for love. After going out on a few of these “man dates,” he happens to meet Sydney at an open house. They get on instantly, and soon the unlikely twosome are going to the beach and rock concerts together.
The joys of male bonding are explored as the inner caveman comes out in the fastidious Peter. Paul Rudd is comedy’s bridesmaid, but never the bride. It is good to see him in this lead role which provides an opportunity for him to show off some expert timing.  
Also, Rudd’s open, trusting, considerate Peter gives estate agents a good name – not a bad thing in today’s climate. He’s adored by all the women in the office but has never been one of the guys. This becomes highly apparent when he’s press-ganged into an unfriendly poker game with a memorably toe-curling result.

It is all good fun and not surprisingly, given the genre, the movie has its crude moments, which do include the inevitable fart and vomit jokes. However, it does have genuine wit and depth which has the effect of making the film funnier on reflection. It also benefits from the talents of the two stars.

Director John Hamburg has assembled a fine supporting cast. Andy Samberg is winning as Peter’s gay brother, who seems more masculine than Peter. Jon Favreau is uproariously obnoxious as the macho monster in Peter’s circle. And one-time Hulk Lou Ferrigno plays himself in a hilarious cameo.

The women — including Rashida Jones as Peter’s fiancee and Jane Curtin as his mother — also perform skillfully and the technical credits are certainly competent.

In 1966 – British pop musics finest era – the BBC played just 2 hours of rock and roll every week. But pirate radio played rock and pop from the high seas 24 hours a day. And 25 million people – over half the population of Britain – listened to the pirates every single day.
Aboard the Radio Rock, the cast including Philip Seymour Hoffman, Rhys Ifans and Nick Frost, get up to mischief, perfectly sound-tracked with classic pop hits from the Rolling Stones and The Kinks among others.
Besides the hi-jinks on the boat runs, what seems from the outset, a more serious storyline about the government plotting how to bring down the pirate radio stations, forced to operate unofficially as they were not given radio licences.
This however provides just as many laughs as the mad-cap DJs and their antics on board. Kenneth Branagh playing a stern Minister Dormandy and Jack Davenport as his assistant prove to be an accidental but hilarious comedy duo.
One of the real stars of the show is Tom Sturridge who plays the shy Carl or Young Carl as he becomes christened when he steps on the boat.
Recently expelled from school, he has been sent by his mother to find some direction in life by visiting his godfather Quentin. However, Quentin is the boss of Radio Rock.

They are led by The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman) – big, brash, American, god of the airwaves, and totally in love with the music. He’s faithfully backed up by his co-broadcasters Dave (Nick Frost) – ironic, intelligent and cruelly
funny; Simon (Chris O’Dowd) – super-nice and searching for true love; Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom) – enigmatic, handsome and man of few words; Wee Small Hours Bob – the late night DJ, whose hobbies are folk music and drugs; Thick Kevin (Tom Brooke) – possessor of the smallest intelligence known to mankind; On-The-Hour John (Will Adamsdale) – the newsreader; and Angus ‘The Nut’ Nutsford (Rhys Darby) – possibly the most annoying man in Britain.

Life on the North Sea is eventful. Simon finds the woman of his dreams and is married on the boat…only to be left by his bride the next day. Gavin (Rhys Ifans) returns from his drug tour of America to his rightful position as greatest DJ in Britain and, in doing so, clashes with the Count. And Carl discovers the opposite sex and who his real father is.

Meanwhile, pirate stations have come to the attention of government minister Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh) who is out for the blood of these lawbreakers. In an era when the stuffy corridors of power stifle anything approaching youthful exuberance, Dormandy seizes the chance to score a political goal and The Marine Broadcasting Offences Act is passed in an effort to outlaw the pirates and remove their ghastly influence from the land once and for all.

What results is a literal storm on the high seas. With Radio Rock in peril, its devoted fans rally together and stage an epic Dunkirk-style hundred boat rescue to save their DJ heroes. Some things may come to an end, but rock ‘n’ roll never dies.

As with the first part of this film, it’s full of exacting panoramas of strategy and combat set in the mountainous jungles of Cuba and Bolivia, where we are taken for the first scenes before following the slow downfall of a man drifting towards his death.

Instead of the frequent flash back and forth in the first part, Che: Part Two gives a linear telling to his last years – from his triumphant speech at the United Nations in 1964 to his violent death at the hands of CIA-backed Bolivian anti-insurgency troops in 1967.

The story follows the time when Che (Benicio Del Toro) tells Cuban ministers he’s off to check on their sugar cane crops then disappears.  Not even his wife, Aleida (Catalina Sandino Moreno), knows he has gone until Fidel (Demián Bichir) reads Che’s letter in public.  It is November of 1966 and Che leaves La Paz to begin to meet with his recruits, build camp and gather food in the forests.  But the head of Bolivia’s Communist Party, Mario Monje, played by Lou Diamond Phillips, refuses financial support for armed struggle.
Che’s medical background, always useful for wounded soldiers, is used in Bolivia as a form of barter, but the small group he leads here are not only struggling for human rights – but to survive. 

Del Toro gives a convincing performance as Guevera – one that won him Best Actor trophy at last year’s’ Cannes Film Festival. It adds to a rewarding, if not profound, film that offers a unique biographical portrait of a man whose image became pop culture and who represents opposing ideals to those of different political convictions.

Che is by turns scholar, guidance counselor, drill sergeant, and comandante, and Del Toro makes him a warrior-saint who learns, against his will, to cultivate a gruff bruiser facade. He yearns to be a “true revolutionary, the highest level of humanity,”

A rewarding film for those who are patient and who have a genuine interest in the rise and fall of Che Guevara.

The end result remains far and away the finest political interview ever conducted – a fascinating insight into the psyche of one of the 20th century’s least-understood world leaders, and a television event that somehow managed to help America come to terms with what had been a disastrous period, the country torn apart by a crisis of self-confidence epitomised by the social conflicts that surrounded the late-60s civil rights movement and opposition to the ultimate failure that was the Vietnam War.

With David Frost now a Knight of the Realm remembered by many as little more than the host of inoffensive celebrity panel show Through The Keyhole, and Nixon both long dead and still reviled, the impact of the Frost/Nixon interviews is easy to underestimate, especially in the UK. So the fact that this film, based on the multiple-award-winning stage play, comes from a British screenwriter-cum-playwright may seem surprising. But Peter Morgan is a man with a brilliant eye for bringing the most out of real-life political drama, and an incredible ability to make politics – which so many of us now find so dull we barely bother voting – deeply engaging on screen.

Be it his 2003 TV dramatisation of the early years of the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown relationship The Deal, or the multiple award-winning films The Queen and The Last King of Scotland – the former about the royal family’s response to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, the latter an adaptation of a fictionalised account of Uganda under its brutal dictator Idi Amin, Morgan has now coined the market in engaging fact-based political drama. Always intimate in scope, and with a surprisingly subtle ability to humanise figures that we’re unused to regarding as real people, Morgan’s dramas have managed to show the power of a good script in a movie making age in which special effects have all too often taken precedence over plot and characterisation.

Directed by Hollywood darling Ron Howard, this big screen version of Morgan’s wildly successful 2006 stage play is a rare and welcome chance for those of us unable to see the London or New York runs of the show to witness the power of the two central performances – Michael Sheen as Frost and Frank Langella as Nixon. With multiple awards already in the bag for the stage version, this big screen adaptation’s multiple nominations in this film award season is a sure indication that this is one not to be missed. Rarely do we see this kind of subtlety and intelligence in film – and even more rarely do we see it in political interviews, then or now. Unmissable.

It’s not just the heavily computer-enhanced black-and-white visual style of The Spirit, nor its comic-book origins that makes this a near-sister film to Sin City. It also shares a writer/director – Frank Miller, a near-legendary comic-book writer and artist in his own right.

Sin City may have been his first foray into directing, but Miller has been one of the big names of the comic-book world for a good couple of decades now. It’s entirely appropriate that he should now be making the leap into movies – not just because the combination of visuals and storylines that unites films and comics as sibling media, but because the movies have had so much impact on his own work.

It’s not just the film noir-inspired feel of his Sin City series – which with big name director Robert Rodriguez he helped bring to the big screen back in 2005 to massive cult success – a similar filmic sense has pervaded almost all his work, from his earliest breakthrough on Marvel’s Daredevil back in the early 1980s through his groundbreaking mid-80s Batman series The Dark Knight Returns, and 1998′s 300, inspired by the 1962 film The 300 Spartans and itself turned into another heavily-stylised big screen adaptation in 2006. If Miller’s first attempts at breaking into Hollywood only resulted in the lacklustre efforts that were Robocop 2 and 3, this can, perhaps, be blamed on him only scripting those films rather than having any control over their direction.

With his own creations 300 and Sin City already having been turned into films, and both Daredevil and Batman having already hit the big screen (albeit to varying degrees of success), for his first solo outing as a film director Miller has instead opted for one of the classic comic book characters that has helped inspire so much of his work.

Though not as famous as Superman or Batman, The Spirit remains one of the all-time greats of the Golden Age of comic-book characters. Created by the masterly, multiple award-winning Will Eisner back in 1940, though The Spirit never achieved the popular acclaim of some of the other comic-book heroes, this darkly complex masked detective may superficially seem to be just another Batman but without the gadgets, yet for comic-book fanboys he will always deserve a place among the greats.

Which all makes a film based on The Spirit a bit of a risky business – the general public have never heard of the character, while for comics fans he’s part of the pantheon, and any mishandling of him will be considered sacrilege. So, will “from the creator of Sin City” be enough to sell this – and, most importantly, has Miller learned enough about the art of filmmaking from his time sharing the director’s chair with Robert Rodriguez? No one doubts Miller’s enthusiasm for a character that did so much to inspire his own highly-successful career in comics, but can he do it justice?

As so often with these things, it’s largely going to come down to personal taste. If you liked the film version of Sin City, you’re likely to have a good time here; if, on the other hand, you’re one of those who wish that Sin City had remained just a decent comic-book series, you’re probably best staying away.

So what of current Bond Daniel Craig, so recently on our screens in his second outing with a license to kill? Since his 2006 Bond debut he’s cropped up in sub-par sci-fi effort The Invasion, sadly unsuccessful Philip Pullman adaptation The Golden Compass (enjoyable, but not enough of a cash cow to have warranted any sequels, despite it being an adaptation of the first book in a trilogy), and the low-budget British effort Flashbacks of a Fool, where rising star Craig played a fading star ruminating on life after the death of a friend in a decent character study that wasn‘t quite as profound as it thought it was. It’s a relatively eclectic mix – just as was Craig’s pre-Bond CV, with its smattering of serious dramas and flashy actioners, from Tomb Raider to Sylvia.

This latest offering from Craig is, if anything, a combination of both – part serious drama, part actioner. The reason? Defiance tells the true story of four Jewish brothers who, during the Second World War, escaped the Nazis to join up with the Belarussian resistance and battle to free other concentration camp prisoners. The real-life Bielski brothers – played here by Craig, the always reliable Live Schrieber, former Billy Elliot Jamie Bell and up-and-coming child actor George MacKay – spent four years hiding in makeshift camps in the Belarussian forests, gradually building up a sizable group of supporters to launch raids on German camps, rescuing well over a thousand Jews from the Holocaust, and causing untold damage to the Nazi war effort in the east through various acts of sabotage. It is one of those many heroic stories of the war that has, somehow, not yet got the big screen treatment, despite having everything you could want from a decent war film.

At once epic in scope and intimate in detail, Defiance is, however, faintly disappointing despite the best efforts of the cast. With such a strong premise – not to mention a budget of a good $50 million – it’s a genuine shame that something more engaging couldn’t have been constructed from such promising material. Still worth a look just for the real life story of these remarkable and little-known heroes of WWII, but hardly a great addition to an already overloaded genre.

Because although Boyle may well still be best known for 1996′s quirkily iconic Trainspotting – another unexpected hit that drummed up more than its share of controversy and has already earned a well-deserved place on that exclusive list of modern classics – he’s actually been pretty successful in a huge range of genres. Be it the psychological thriller Shallow Grave back in 1995 – a claustrophobic study of psychosis worthy of Hitchcock (if Hitchcock had ever made films for the MTV generation) – or the groundbreaking zombie apocalypse flick 28 Days Later in 2002, sweet family comedy Millions in 2004, or tensely philosophical sci-fi piece Sunshine in 2007, Boyle has an uncanny knack to shift genres with near effortless ease.

Based on the bestselling and award-winning debut novel by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup, Q and A, the film follows the story of impoverished Mumbai teenager Jamal (played by big screen newcomer Dev Patel, previously seen on infamous teen sitcom Skins, and proving himself a promising young talent here), who not only manages to land a place on India’s version of the Chris Tarrant-fronted TV quiz, but also makes it right through to the ultimate prize. With such a feat still being such a rare occurrence, suspicions are naturally raised. How did someone with no education from the destitute slums manage to answer so many difficult questions correctly? Did he cheat, and if so, how?

And so comes the exploration of Jamal’s background as he tries to explain how he managed to get so many questions right despite his impoverished origins. With the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? having prize money worth – in terms of the country’s average wealth – vastly more than that of the gameshow’s other international variants, and with strict rules to prevent anyone with too much formal education getting on the show, little wonder that the show’s producers are keen to avoid an episode like the infamous coughing incident that his the UK version back in 2001 with winner Major Charles Ingham eventually convicted of deception. In any case, jackpot winners are so rare on the show – with only six in its ten year UK history, and only four on the Indian version since it launched in 2000 – little wonder that when the top prize is achieved suspicions are raised.

The end result is an engaging, sweet and never predictable detective story with an impressive 93% positive rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, a grand yet modest jigsaw that slowly falls into place as flashbacks splice with the present and Jamal’s story becomes that first of India and then of all of us in a film that by describing any further would be ruined. With numerous awards already under its belt, this modestly-budgeted effort from one of Britain’s finest modern directors is not to be missed.