It’s been just over a decade since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s last major film role, but after dusting off the cobwebs in last year’s “The Expendables 2,” it’s hard to imagine a more perfect comeback vehicle than “The Last Stand.” Directed by Korean filmmaker Kim Jee-woon, the movie not only reintroduces Schwarzenegger as an older, wiser action hero, but it harkens back to earlier films like “Commando,” when you could get away with being silly as long as it was fun. The first half is a pretty slow burn as Kim patiently builds up to the climactic showdown between Arnie’s band of small-town cops and the bad guys, and though there are some entertaining set pieces along the way, the movie would have benefited from a stronger sense of urgency. Once the film arrives at its big standoff, however, “The Last Stand” is given a much-needed adrenaline shot that cranks up the intensity and violence, more than earning its R rating with some cool gunplay. The movie is far from Jee-woon’s best work, but it’s a mostly enjoyable U.S. debut that will hopefully inspire audiences to track down some of his previous films. It also serves as a welcome return for Schwarzenegger, because no matter how you feel about the man, Hollywood just hasn’t been the same without him.

Blu-ray Highlight: None of the extras are particularly memorable on their own, but Lionsgate has provided a solid collection that includes a behind the scenes look at making the movie, a short weapons featurette, and an in-depth breakdown of the cornfield chase sequence.

It’s a little upsetting to think that “Side Effects” could be Steven Soderbergh’s directorial swan song, because he’s proven over the last few years that while not every one of his movies is a success, his ability to jump between genres with ease makes him one of the more exciting filmmakers in Hollywood. In addition to reteaming the director with past stars like Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum, the film reunites Soderbergh with “Contagion” screenwriter Scott Z. Burns for another medical-themed thriller that strikes a similar chord of paranoia and Hitchcockian suspense. Though it’s not nearly as great as it could’ve been due to a slow first act, once the mystery at the center of the story is revealed, the movie eventually hits its stride, even if that means suspending your disbelief at times. Law, who’s always been a surprisingly underrated actor, delivers another solid performance as the hard-done psychiatrist, while Rooney Mara proves that “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” wasn’t a fluke. It’s hardly one of Soderbergh’s more memorable movies, but “Side Effects” is an enjoyably old school thriller that serves as a worthy bookend to an impressive career cut far too short.

Blu-ray Highlight: There’s a faux behind the scenes featurette that’s good for a few laughs and a pair of fictional drug commercials, but unfortunately, that’s it.

With the exception of a few movies on his resume, director Taylor Hackford has generally been a pretty disappointing filmmaker, so it’s not at all surprising to find that his latest effort follows in those footsteps. Though “Parker” marks the first time that author Donald E. Westlake’s famous hard-boiled criminal (whose adventures have been adapted for the big screen several times before) is referred to by his real name, it doesn’t change the fact that the movie fails on numerous levels. Jason Statham is an incredibly likeable action hero, but his brooding presence just doesn’t feel right for the title character, while Jennifer Lopez is terribly miscast in a part that serves little purpose to the overall story. The rest of the cast is comprised of great character actors like Nick Nolte, Michael Chiklis and Clifton Collins Jr., but their talents are wasted in throwaway roles. Having never read any of the books in the Parker series, it’s hard to say whether the film lives up to the source material, but as a fan of Mel Gibson’s turn as the antihero in “Payback,” it pales in comparison.

Blu-ray Highlight: Director Taylor Hackford provides an informative audio commentary about making the movie, including an interesting recount of the on-the-fly creativity required to capture the opening heist sequence at the Ohio State Fair, but the rest of the bonus material is about as generic as it comes.

It may seem lazy to draw such comparisons, but “Beautiful Creatures” is about as close to a “Twilight” clone that Hollywood has produced, trading vampires and werewolves for witches, and although the film shows more promise than its spiritual predecessor in the early stages, its overdependence on the main love story prevents “Beautiful Creatures” from distinguishing itself as anything other than a “Twilight” wannabe. Of course, one thing the movie has that the vampire saga didn’t is a pair of likeable leads, and that’s credit to authors Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl’s source material, as well as newcomers Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert for bringing them to life. The film also benefits greatly from the prestige that Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson and Viola Davis bring to the project (particularly Thompson, who’s clearly having a ball hamming it up as the villain), although that doesn’t save the film from its own inadequacies. Characters drop in and out of the story with no explanation and there’s so much babble about destinies, curses and rules that it becomes a jumbled mess of boring exposition. The movie’s unexpectedly goofy sense of humor helps to keep things light, but “Beautiful Creatures” doesn’t feel like it was made by a studio that loved the books, but rather the idea of success that a film adaptation might bring – all business and no soul.

Blu-ray Highlight: The two-disc combo pack includes a collection of mini-featurettes on everything from adapting the book for the big screen, to costumes and special effects, but they’re packed with so much filler that the bonus material feels like an afterthought.

Developer: Otto-Ville Ojala

Compatible with: iPhone 4 and up (optimized for iPhone 5), iPod touch 3rd gen and up, iPad 2 and up, Android devices

Requires: iOS 4.3 or later (Android version depends on device)

Price: $1.99 (free on Android)

Available: here (for iOS) and here (for Android)

When you really think about it, great gaming apps usually come in some pretty odd forms.

For instance we’ve seen apps that make ninjas slice fruit, or feature birds suicide bombing entrenched pigs set the world on fire, while glorified versions of Pictionary and Scrabble have destroyed free time and traditional social lives. It’s a history that should have taught me that at any time, from any concept, the next great gaming app can emerge.

Still though, I never would have imagined that a two button game with luchadores joined at the arms fighting to bash the other ones head would have been that game.

But wouldn’t you know it, “Wrestle Jump” is truly great.

Though strange, the concept of “Wrestle Jump” couldn’t be simpler. You and a conjoined opponent (computer or real) battle for supremacy by trying to force the other ones head against the nearest solid object. Doing so gets you a point, first to five points wins, and you can add to the pandemonium by activating ice sections and wind.

The only control available to you in “Wrestle Jump” is a single arcade button (used to propel your character’s legs, and make them jump), but there is a layer of strategy involved that isn’t immediately evident. The game is really all about defense and momentum, as mashing the button as fast as you can usually results in losses, while timing and situational awareness win the day.

Yet, there is also a chaotic randomness to “Wrestle Jump” that negates even the best strategies. A hit can come at any time, which can be either highly satisfying, or incredibly frustrating depending on what side you’re on, but it applies equally to both players and rarely feels unfair. Instead, it lends an unpredictability to every contest that provides a part of the game’s appeal.

The bigger part of the game’s appeal though is the two-player mode. Hands down this is one of my all-time favorite mobile multiplayer games ever, and its due in large part to the fact that both players can share one phone (or better yet, tablet) to play it. It makes an already simple game even more accessible, and ensures that no “Wrestle Jump” round ever passes without a healthy amount of “Oohs and Aahs,” as well as abundant smack talk and sweet moments of victory. It’s everything you could ever want from a multiplayer game, and provides one of the greatest arcade style two player experiences since the golden age of arcade gaming.

“Wrestle Jump” is an app you might play occasionally by yourself, but in the company of a friend becomes one of the most entertaining games of the year on any platform. It encourages a level of competitiveness that you don’t usually get from mobile games, and it does it without guns, cars, puzzles, or any of the other things you associate with the concept. Instead, this is head to head gaming distilled to its purest form.

Yes, “Wrestle Jump” is really that much fun. You could argue that its single player game is dull (it is) but you are never far from its multiplayer mode, and the sheer competitive joy it brings. Because of that mode, and with a little help from Google translate, I can confidently tell you that “Wrestle Jump” es mi aplicación de la semana.

“Black Rock” hits theaters this week, starring Kate Bosworth, Lake Bell and director Katie Aselton. The latter two sat down to talk to us regarding the making of the thriller, set on a deserted island where three friends have to fight for their survival. Bell and Aselton forged a quick friendship, with Bell taking on a character far different from the one she plays on Cartoon Network’s “Children’s Hospital,” while actor/director Aselton faced off against the elements and sometimes husband/screenwriter Mark Duplass in her creation of a true labor of love.

BULLZ-EYE: Katie, could you tell me the genesis of the story?

KATIE ASELTON: It’s the story of three childhood friends who have grown apart, and in an effort to reconnect, revisit an island that they used to frequent as kids. The movie really starts off as a chick flick/romantic dramedy and takes a severe turn when they learn that they are not the only ones on the island. There are three men out there hunting. After a series of unfortunate events, they find themselves in a fight for survival in an effort to get off the island alive. My first film, “The Freebie,” was a very quiet, intimate, emotional, talky-talky movie that was all inside a very small, Spanish bungalow. I felt the need after that to get outside, move my body and maybe kill someone. It’s just something I had to do. I don’t know why.

LAKE BELL: You had to express yourself.

KATIE ASELTON: Honestly, I’m new at this whole filmmaking thing and I’m trying some different things out and experimenting with different genres and seeing what I like. This type of thriller, this approach to a thriller that is very reality based, very truthful and simple in story and concept is something that excited me. It’s the kind of movie that I love to watch. I love “Deliverance.” I love “Misery,” even “The River Wild.” I used those as my points of reference. I also loved the idea of working with women. The TV show that I am on, I am the only girl with five guys. So, it was really exciting to get the chance to sit with two girls and kick some guys’ asses. That was fun, too.

LAKE BELL: Including the crew.

KATIE ASELTON: Including the crew. I kicked their asses too. And I had female crew members as well. It was a movie about strong women made by strong women and female producers. I had a female DP. I, myself, am female.

LAKE BELL: She is female.

KATIE ASELTON: And I had Lake and Kate [Bosworth], who are super rad ladies. It was a really, really fun experience and something that I had never done before and something that I’m very glad I did.

BE: With this being your second feature, what advice did Mark give you?

KATIE ASELTON: Well, we came up together. We made all of the movies together. He is wonderful about letting me have my own independent voice that is not his movie. What’s special about our collaboration professionally is that he really lets me do my thing and tell the story I want to tell the way I want to tell it. He got to write a script that’s very different than what he’s ever written before. He’s just really supportive. I will definitely run things past him. There were certain things he was very supportive of and certain things he was very critical of and I will take it or leave it. (laughs)

BE: Did he let you practice your stunts on him?

KATIE ASELTON: Absolutely not. (laughs)

BE: Was Mark supportive of the arc of Kate Bosworth’s character, who brings you two together?

KATIE ASELTON: Absolutely. As a filmmaker, you have an idea in your head of what it’s going to look like and hopefully you can pull it off. That was definitely a moment that gets a response from a theater. It’s thrilling as a filmmaker when you can surprise an audience. It’s a really great moment and I’m really happy the way Hilary Spera, my DP, decided to shoot it and light it. I was really excited. Part of it was Ben Lovett, the way he did the score. It almost emotionally tricks you as to what’s about to happen. Everyone in editorial was like, “Oh, that’s a good one.”

BE: Was it a tough shoot filming outside?

KATIE ASELTON: No, it was really easy. (laughs) It was so hard. It was hands down, the most challenging shoot I could have ever conceived of. Everyday was a new challenge. Whether it was the weather… it rained when it was supposed to be sunny. It was sunny when it was supposed to have rained. The fog was so intense that you couldn’t even see where the characters were. The temperatures were super low. The water is as cold as we claim it to be in the story and colder. I almost killed Lake. Tides coming in and never going out.

LAKE BELL: Six hour night shoots.

KATIE ASELTON: Yes, we were shooting nights on the shortest nights of the year.

LAKE BELL: And naked.

KATIE ASELTON: And naked with no clothes on. That was my own fault. That was something I couldn’t control, but something I did encourage. (laughs)

LAKE BELL: Did Mark write that in as a goof?

KATIE ASELTON: He did. He was like, “Hey babe, take your clothes off.” It was a challenging film from start to finish. It was not like “The Freebie,” which we went in and pre-lit… where we could literally go in, plug in the plug and just start shooting. This was very different. Honestly, the logline for the film, “The fight for survival,” became a metaphor for our experience making the movie. We just needed to get out of the month of June alive. The fact that we have a movie that I love to show for it is really exciting and I’m very proud of that.

BE: How close is the film to the original concept of the film, and was it difficult shooting the nude scenes?

KATIE ASELTON: It’s hard to say if the movie was close to my original conception, because it took so many versions. I don’t remember. I know I loved the final product. I know there are scenes that far exceeded what I hoped they could be. I think you’re always critical of your own work and you always feel that you could do better, but I’m really proud of what we did. I don’t remember what I hoped it was going to be. As far as nudity…

LAKE BELL: I think because we shot it chronologically, preparing ourselves for certain moments to attack, literally and emotionally. That sort of cold, vulnerable, nude, very emotionally raw scene became just another thing to tackle. At that point, we had already done the water stuff.

KATIE ASELTON: Which, on a sidenote, she literally almost died. She went into a 24-hour panic attack. It was really cold temperatures and really scary. Anything after that was a win, because she was alive, clothes or no clothes.

LAKE BELL: Clothes, smothes. (laughs). I was like, “I can’t breathe.”

KATIE ASELTON: The way it was shot and how it was treated. We were joking that we would close the set for privacy.

LAKE BELL: Except we had, like, a four person crew.

KATIE ASELTON: Everyone had a job to do and you couldn’t tell them not to do it. It was very easy in a way.

LAKE BELL: We definitely had a moment of, “We’re doing this.” We took the robes off and it’s cold. We did the first scene and hair and makeup came over. It was one person. (laughs) They came over with the robe. We cover back up again and by the third take, it was like, “Let’s just keep it that way.”

KATIE ASELTON: It’s just a body. Everybody can see it now.

LAKE BELL: Everyone’s seen it now. The bugs certainly have.

KATIE ASELTON: We were sitting bare-bottomed. Initially, we were going to sit on a blanket, but you could see it on camera.

LAKE BELL: So, we lost that blanket.

KATIE ASELTON: A lot of ticks.

BE: Did either of you have any prior experience in the outdoors?

KATIE ASELTON: We shot, literally, in my childhood backyard. The woods that you see in the film, I played in as a child. The fort that we were in was a recreation of something that I had built with my best friend when we were five. It was horribly constructed, but it was all doodled. That was my playground. My closest friend lived three miles away. A lot of time I spent by myself in the woods. I knew them very well and the beaches that we were on. It was all very interesting and special to sit there and take a quiet moment and think that if anyone had told me that when I was six years old, and playing on this beach, that I would come back and make a movie that would end up premiering at the Arclight and playing at theaters across the country, I would think you were crazy. It was really special. My family was a huge part in making the movie. Lake and Kate became a part of my family. As far as drawing on nostalgia, yeah, because for me, it was really like going home. The town dock was my town dock. The guys on the docks were my friends’ dads from childhood.

BE: What did you guys do to keep yourselves occupied in the middle of Maine?

LAKE BELL: I have an iPhone full of weird pictures. (laughs) We would go over to her parent’s house. We lived in separate cabins. The girls lived in the girl cabin. The guys were in the guy cabin. We would go over to her parents house to the basement where we would find a VHS to play. It was like “Gee, what VHS did you get?” We had “Ghostbusters,” “The Right Stuff”… it was funny.

KATIE ASELTON: It was funny, because we shared a home together. We had a special summer camp-like experience. We’re lucky if we get a girl’s weekend all together. To get a whole month with girls that you really, really click with was great.

LAKE BELL: I went to boarding school, so I had moments and flashes of that where you’d go, “Did you see the label on my Tupperware, because that was my couscous. You can have some, obviously, but just…” It was vegan and weird.

KATIE ASELTON: There were moments where Lake and I would walk into the kitchen and Kate would be eating was eating a thing of ice cream and we’re like, “Of course you’d just eat a whole container of ice cream.”

BE: Lake, how was the chemistry with the women, and had you worked with them before?

LAKE BELL: Katie and I knew each other as sort of social acquaintances for a while. Obviously, during and after making this movie, I feel we graduated to family status. I do feel a sisterly bond. When you’re naked and in the woods with someone, embracing, shivering, crying and hitting each other, there is a certain bond that’s forged. Then, Katie was like, “In your opinion, who comes to mind when you think of Sarah? Who would be another comrade who would be super game, really cool, and a real girl’s girl?” Kate Bosworth came to mind. I knew her socially. We were pals. I really liked her, but I never got to socially hang out with her that much. So, I brought her up and told her about the script. She was interested, read it and was super jazzed on it. They met and fell in love. (laughs)

KATIE ASELTON: It was a bizarre three-way love affair. We just clicked in a way that doesn’t happen often.

LAKE BELL: You’d need to be bonded to take on this kind of endeavor.

BE: Did you guys get hurt during the filming of the movie?

KATIE ASELTON: Yes, we did. A lot.

LAKE BELL: Absolutely.

KATIE ASELTON: Thankfully, my producer’s dad came up to visit. He’s a chiropractor. In the very first fight, where they grab the girls in the dark, I wonked my back. I get whipped around and bodyslammed down numerous times. My back completely compressed and went crazy. He came in and he was like, “Are you okay?” and I’m like, “I’m better now!” It was intense. It was really intense.

BE: Could you discuss the choreography in the very intense last scene?

KATIE ASELTON: We didn’t do a lot of choreography and I think that was the key to making it look that way. I, very specifically, approached all of the fight scenes with as little training as possible, because I wanted these girls to be very relatable and very real. As an audience member, I automatically separate myself when I see someone throw a roundhouse kick I don’t know how to throw a roundhouse kick. That’s crazy. I’ve never personally thrown a punch in my life until I did this movie. Then, I was like, “Oh my god.” But they were all very sloppy and very gritty, and awkward. I wanted it to feel like these girls had nothing but their passion to survive. That’s their weapon. I think women are ferociously strong when they need to be. They’re the people who lift cars off of babies. They keep telling me that. I keep referencing it like I know it as a fact. (laughs) We have an incredible inner strength and that’s what I wanted to blast open and I wanted to really see. And that’s what happens. It becomes a battle of who wants to live more.

To look back on the controversy circling around J.J. Abrams’ reboot of the “Star Trek” franchise is like trying to remember a distant dream: you vaguely recall that the fans of the long-running sci-fi franchise were freaking out about the idea of new actors slipping on the uniforms of James T. Kirk and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise, but so many Trekkies came to embrace Abrams’ “Star Trek” so quickly that it’s almost like the controversy never happened. Y’know, like pretty much everything that ever happened in the original “Star Trek” series and movies. Or have you forgotten how Nero (Eric Bana), the villain in the 2009 film, went back in time on a mission of vengeance and proceeded to change the course of history?

Of course you haven’t forgotten. And you can be damned sure the Trekkies haven’t, either. Ever since Abrams’ film effectively wiped the slate clean on “Trek” history, theories have been flying by at warp speed about whether the next film would find Kirk and company on an all-new voyage or if the storyline might feature new takes on more classic characters. The answer? A little from Column A and a little from Column B. Thing is, we can’t really tell you much about the bits from Column B. Or, rather, we could, but we don’t want to spoil the fun…even if at least one of those fun bits has been bandied about as a plot possibility for the sequel from the very beginning.

Like its predecessor, “Star Trek Into Darkness” more or less starts off at full throttle, with the crew of the Enterprise in the midst of a mission to a strange new world which hasn’t yet reached the level of technology as the worlds within the United Federation of Planets, putting it under protection of the so-called Prime Directive. If you’re unfamiliar with the “Trek” mythos, this basically means that the planet is supposed to be left alone to develop at its own pace, but even if you barely know “Trek” at all, you still probably know that Kirk’s never been a big fan of following the rules, and as a comparative youngster in Starfleet, he’s still learning that there are significant consequences when the rules are broken. What he’s also learning is that not every officer is cut from the same cloth as Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood); some tend toward the hard-ass method of command, like Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller).

Come to think of it, Kirk learns a lot of lessons in the film, most of them the hard way, but, hey, those are the lessons that tend to stick the strongest. In fact, the newly forged bonds between all the members of the Enterprise crew are tested profoundly over the course of the film, with Kirk and Spock struggling to find the friendship history tells us they are destined to have, Spock and Uhura still attempting to make their unlikely romance work, younger crew members like Sulu and Chekov trying to make their mark, and Scotty testing his boundaries as the ship’s engineer and learning how far his new captain is willing to trust him.

And then there’s the film’s mysterious villain, John Harrison, played by Benedict Cumberbatch of “Sherlock” fame. He is, to put it simply, a badass, and he’s definitely one of the most intimidating “Trek” villains since…well, gosh, I think you’d have to go all the way back to Khan. Harrison’s acts of terrorism unabashedly bring 9/11 to mind, but given the history of “Trek” paralleling present day events, this is hardly surprising.

“Star Trek Into Darkness” handily breaks the curse of every other “Trek” film being lackluster, with Abrams offering at least as much action, humor, and small character moments as he did the first time around. Mind you, it’s possible that diehard Trekkies could be split down the middle on their opinion of the film – torn between whether they like the various homages to past “Trek” adventures, some of which are extremely overt, or if they wish they’d left well enough alone and just created something completely new. In the end, though, the film proves so fast-moving and infectiously fun that they’d be better off just sitting back and enjoying the ride.

With “Liz & Dick” now available on DVD, Russell kindly set about doing a bit of press for the production, and in chatting with Bullz-Eye, she discussed how working alongside Lohan caused her maternal instincts to kick in, revealed how serious funnyman Bill Murray can be, and detailed the good and the bad about her short-lived stint as a series regular on The WB’s “Glory Days.”

Bullz-Eye: I feel like I’m the only TV critic who didn’t get a chance to watch “Liz & Dick” when it originally aired, so I’m glad they sent me a copy of the DVD release in time to watch it before you and I talked.

Theresa Russell: And…? [Laughs.] What did you think?

BE: I enjoyed it well enough.

TR: It’s entertaining, I think.

BE: Well, I tend to enjoy bio-pics in general, if only just to see how a cast and crew decide to tackle the challenge of bringing someone’s life story to the screen.

TR: Yeah. I think Lindsay did a good job. And I didn’t realize that (Elizabeth Taylor’s) mom was so involved her life, either, until doing that, so I thought it was interesting. I actually met Liz. My former husband, Nicolas Roeg, did…I think it was for CBS, but it was Tennessee Williams’ “Sweet Bird of Youth” with her. She was just a wonderful woman. I even tried on that damned diamond. [Laughs.] She goes, “Here, try it on!” I was, like, “Oh, my God…” We were standing around her pool. I put it on, and the thing was…I’m not a big jewelry person, so I thought it would look like a hunk of glass, but it didn’t. It was beautiful. I mean, looking into it was like looking into infinity. It was unbelievably beautiful. She was a trip, though. She was an amazing woman. She really was special. A special creature.

BE: Presumably you were at least somewhat aware of the way her relationship with Richard Burton was trumpeted to the heavens by the press. Do you have any particular recollections of that coverage?

TR: Well, I was still very, very young when most of it was going on. I remember my mom talking about it a little bit, though. And then when I got a little older, I asked her, “Why did she marry so much?” And she goes, “Well, you know, that’s what happened then: if you went to bed with a guy, you married them.”  I said, “Oh, okay! I guess you’ve got to get married lots of times, then!” [Laughs.] But she was great. One time, I was able to have a long conversation with her—she was actually with Larry Fortensky at the time—and she said that Richard was the love of her life. And that’s sad, really. Sad that they couldn’t figure that out and make it work between them.

BE: In playing Liz’s mother, did you do any research in regards to what Sara Taylor was really like?

TR: Well, I did what I could find. There wasn’t a heck of a lot on her, though. I basically looked online and found the things I could. She was an actress in her own right, for one thing. And she was born in Kansas, believe it or not. I always thought she was English. But, no, she moved to England and married an Englishman, and that’s why Elizabeth was born in England. And having had her own aspirations of being an actress, I guess that’s why she kind of guided Elizabeth into that area. Or it seems like it, anyway. She was a bit of a stage mom, but it doesn’t seem like there was any animosity between them. Not like poor Lindsay having a stage mom. It never seemed like that with Sara and Elizabeth.

BE: And on that note, how was it working with Ms. Lohan? “Liz & Dick” was obviously an attempt at a comeback for her.

TR: Yeah! Y’know what? She is so talented and so smart, and… [Hesitates.] It’s kind of scary and sad, really. She just did not have the tools. Nobody gave her the tools to figure this out. But I was playing her mom, and I also really am a mom, so maybe that’s why I felt even more maternal towards her…? I don’t know, but I was just, like, “Please…” I prayed for her to get it together. I want her to be my age. I want to see what she does in her life. But, y’know, there are times when it’s like being ruled by King Joffrey. [Laughs.] It’s, like, “C’mon, people, tell her what’s happening! Somebody around here be the grown-up!” I thought she did a good job. But sometimes it’s like she works off the drama. Nobody’s ever taught her otherwise, I guess.

BE: You were in your teens when you started acting. Was there every any point where you might’ve gone down a similar road yourself?

TR: Oh, no. [Laughs.] I’m just not that kind of girl. Not that kind of person. But also, I’m sure it makes a difference that I had my mother, and if my mother wasn’t around, then I had my grandmother. We were all very loved and very grounded in that way and knew how to behave. So I had a completely different upbringing. It was totally different.

BE: When you started your film career, it was with no small number of big names around you. Your first film, “The Last Tycoon,” where you co-starred with Robert DeNiro, Tony Curtis, and Robert Mitchum.

TR: Mitchum! I used to love old movies. When I came home from school, I was the oldest of five and had to look after my younger siblings, and…we only had four channels back then, y’know. [Laughs.] But one of them was…I think it was Channel 11 in those days, and it was just nothing but old movies, so that’s what I used to watch. So when (Elia) Kazan brought in DeNiro, I was, like, “Oh, hi,” and blah blah blah or whatever, and when DeNiro left the room, Kazan said, “Do you know who that is?” I said, “Oh, yeah, he’s great, I saw him in ‘The Godfather’ and ‘Taxi Driver.’” He said, “Well, you just seem very relaxed.” I said, “That’s ‘cause I’m more excited about working with Robert Mitchum!” I mean, he was amazing, Robert Mitchum. What a guy. He was such a man. He was great.

BE: You also worked with Bill Murray on “The Razor’s Edge,” before anyone knew he had it in him to be a dramatic actor.

TR: Yeah, that was his first dramatic part. That’s why he wanted to do it, I guess. I adore Bill. I wish I could work with him more. Because then I worked with him years later on “Wild Things.” I love him. I really do! Bill, if you’re out there, I want to work with you again! [Laughs.]

BE: How was he on the film? Did he seem at all out of his comfort zone, given that it was his first dramatic part?

TR: Well, no, but I think that’s because he’s the one who wanted to do it, y’know? That was one of the things he said to the studio. It was, like, “If you want me to do ‘Ghostbusters 2,’” or whatever it was, “then I want to do this!” It was a passion of his. In fact, after that movie, he ended up living in Paris for a long time, kind of going on odd treks of his own around the world. It seemed to change him somehow. But he’s a lovely man, and…well, y’know, it’s what they say, and it’s true, that most comedians really aren’t laughing and making jokes all the time. Not that he’s depressed, but he’s serious. He’s a serious guy. Comedy really is a serious business! But he was really serious about doing “The Razor’s Edge,” too. Not that we didn’t still have fun on the set, of course. But he’s a serious guy.

BE: Even putting “Liz & Dick” into the mix, you still really haven’t done a huge amount of TV work, but you tackled a regular series role in 2002 with “Glory Days” (also known as “Demontown”). It was short-lived, but how was the experience of the weekly-series grind? Did you enjoy it?

TR: Well, y’know, I did and I didn’t. (Executive producer) Kevin Williamson is a wonderful writer, but it got kind of… [Hesitates.] Something happened with the storyline, and he had to change it around because of the…well, I don’t want to go into the details, but, anyway, it was a little bit unfortunate, because it was supposed to have a different tone than it ended up having. So that was kind of a disappointment. For everyone, but mostly for him, I would think. But I loved Vancouver. We were up in Vancouver for the series, and I liked that. So, yeah I did enjoy it, but I also thought that…y’know, they just kill the crews on those things. I just thought, “Why do they do it?” And they’re, like, “Because this how we’ve always done it.” But why do you have to have a different director every week? This takes so much time to break them in and do this thing and that, and the hours just get longer and longer. Why not just have, like, three directors and rotate? I dunno, if I was gonna produce a TV series, I’d do it a lot differently than they do. [Laughs.] I mean, you talk to so many of these crews where these shows go on a long time, and people start getting sick, their marriages break up, they never see their kids…I just think that’s wrong. It’s so hard, y’know? Those kinds of hours are really just crazy hard. And it just seems like you don’t have to do it that way. I mean, I dunno, but it seems like a “save a dime to spend a dollar” situation to me. But other than that, I enjoyed it a lot. It was fun.

BE: Would you venture back to the small screen for a series again?

TR: Oh, sure. I’d love to be in an ensemble. That’d suit me very well. I wouldn’t want to be the lead. [Laughs.] But it’d be fun to be in an ensemble. I’d enjoy that very much.

BE: Do you have a favorite project that you’ve worked on over the years that didn’t get the love you thought it deserved?

TR: Oh, I don’t know. I mean, I loved the films I did with Nic Roeg, y’know? My husband. But those are kind of cultish, and…well, I believe they were ahead of their time. People do bother to go back and look at “Bad Timing” and “Insignificance” and some of the other ones that we did together. Before MTV, that kind of cutting…it was, like, “Oh, it’s so strange! I don’t understand!” Now everybody’s used to that kind of non-linear sort of cutting things. But he was a real…he was an amazing, one-of-a-kind trendsetter. He really was. Is. I mean, he’s still alive! [Laughs.]

BE: I know you’re not in it, but I’ve got a seven-year-old daughter, and I’m just about to introduce her to his film “The Witches.” Not quite, but just about.

TR: Well, yeah, and that’s a terrific film. It really is. But I remember him being in fights with Jim Henson, arguing about the amount of farting. [Laughs.] I was, like, “Are you really? You’re gonna cause a real big problem with the producers and make Jim Henson mad at you because you want the mice, the boys, to fart more?” I mean, come on! That’s the kind of passion you get into when you’re filming, though, I guess. I do, too. But arguing about farting? How many farts and how long they can be, and what’s acceptable and what isn’t…? Okay…

BE: Just to wrap up, in looking at your filmography, there’s one movie that seems very out of your usual wheelhouse: “A Young Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.” How did you come to be a part of that production?

TR: Oh, I was living in London—I lived in London for almost 20 years—and it was just something that came up, that came down the pike. But I remember we were were shooting in Prague not very long after the Berlin Wall came down, and it was really amazing.

By the way, before we go, I’ve got two other films coming up. One’s called “Moving Mountains,” which is actually about mountain-top removal, and then there’s “A Winter Rose,” which is sort of an “A Star is Born” kind of thing.

BE: Do you have release dates on either them yet?

TR: No, no release dates yet. But they’re wrapped, so they’ll be out there someday! [Laughs.]

While the movies once celebrated cigarette smoking as well, modern day Hollywood Boulevard makes it tricky for smokers to indulge in their passion, give or take some hookah bars and a medical marijuana “clinic.” Booze, however can be obtained with great ease. All you need is plenty of ready cash to afford the inflated prices or a clean credit card or two and you can have your fill of cocktails.

And that’s exactly what I did between classic, near classic, and merely really interesting movies the weekend of the 2013 TCM Fest. What follows is a (relatively) brief journal of the drinks I found going up and down the boulevard we call Hollywood the final weekend of April.

Now, I should add that this listing is my no means exhaustive and is, with one exception, limited to cocktails one can purchase on Hollywood Boulevard proper, no side streets allowed. They can all be obtained within a fairly easy walk of Sid Grauman’s old Chinese and Egyptian Theaters and the legendary Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, the heart of Hollywood and the home base of the TCM Fest.

And so we begin our journey across the street from the Egyptian at what is still Los Angeles’s most famous bar.

1. Musso and Frank Grill — The Martini and the Sidecar

Musso and Frank is Hollywood’s oldest restaurant and perhaps still its most famous. It’s been featured in countless movies, including 1994′s “Ed Wood,” and real deal A-listers can still sometimes be seen here. I actually spotted double Oscar winner Christoph Waltz hanging out at a booth just a few nights after the festival wrapped.

The Musso and Frank martini is easily the iconic cocktail in Los Angeles and it certainly appears that the restaurant’s most iconic bartender is Manny Aguirre, pictured above poring his signature cocktail. Born in Ecuador but coming across like Austrian-born Hollywood great Billy Wilder, Aguirre manages to be both friendly and grumpily dismissive, and he’ll be a bit friendlier and a bit less grumpy if you happen to be an attractive lady of any age. Formerly of the long defunct Scandia, a restaurant considered to be L.A.’s finest in its day, Aguirre is a true magician behind the bar.

Aguirre’s very dry martini is made to classic cocktail specification and is — James Bond and Nick Charles be damned — stirred, not shaken. It features Gilbey’s Gin and just the tinest splash of Noilly Pratt dry vermouth. It’s as smooth as silk and as crisp as celery straight from the fridge. The martini is, however, not actually his absolute favorite — and he’s right.

Manny Aguirre’s Sidecar is nothing short of a mixological miracle. Sweet, refreshing, and just tart enough to be respectable, and with a beautiful foamy top that comes out of nowhere and nothing (secret egg whites?), the shocking part is that Aguirre uses ingredients that are far from super-premium. Using standard call brands Christian Brothers Brandy, DeKuyper Triple Sec with his lemon juice, he made what ranks as one the two or three best cocktails I’ve had so far — it certainly beats my own attempts at the drink back in 2011.

A cocktail marvel. No fancy Cognac or Cointreau needed, and I have absolutely no idea how he managed it. All this, and Aguirre actually wasn’t happy with the sugar rimming, performed by a junior (under 70 years old) bartender which he found excessive, but I found to be sheer perfection.

2. The Library Bar — Last Tango in Modena

While the Hollywood Roosevelt only plays host to the TCM Fest four days a year, it’s one of L.A. best places to buy a drink at some four or five separate bars 365 days a year — though you’d better not mind paying through the nose. At a bracing $17.00 per drink, the Library Bar only charges a buck more for its offerings than the larger Public Kitchen and its cocktails are not only among the town’s most critically respected, they’re tailor made for the individual. Just tell its friendly but camera shy bartenders your preferences in booze, and they’ll come up with something really special, just for you.

It’s sort of my job to be able to appreciate most kinds of booze, so I gave my mixologist the freedom to create anything — except that I told her I’d be happier if there were somehow a cinematic connection. The result was this delightful concoction which is no smear upon the name of Bernardo Bertolucci’s “Last Tango in Paris.”

“Last Tango in Modena,” features Hendrick’s Gin, a St. Germain infused whipped eggwhite topping, and a 25 year old aged balsamic vinegar, all cooled by a single giant ice cube. The vinegar comes from where I hear all the really good balsamics are made, Modena, Italy. It really was delicious and the big ice cube means that it only gets better as you linger over it — but I didn’t have time for that.

3. Loteria Grill — The Jalapeño Margarita

A truly smashing high-end Mexican eatery that began as a counter at the Original Farmer’s Market a bit south and west of the boulevard of dreams, this rapidly growing chain appears to be hanging on to its quality despite it’s rapid cross town expansion. Certainly, I’ve had nothing but solid-to-fantastic experiences at its Hollywood Blvd. location near Musso’s and across from the Egyptian Theater. Moreover, it’s jalapeño margarita is a  modern day classic worthy of such TCM friendly Mexican-American Hollywood greats as Anthony Quinn (“Zorba the Greek,” “Lawrence of Arabia”), Katy Jurado (“High Noon”) and, “Khan!!!!!” himself, Ricardo Montalban.

I really, really love this drink but I’m not sure the ingredients that we’ve been able to dig up tell the whole story. Aside from some pretty high quality tequila, this drink is said to contain triple sec, orange juice, jalapeño juice, and a bit of Grand Marnier. The rim is dipped in what appears to be a mixture of chili powder and the usual salt.  Sold at a fairly reasonable price, especially during happy hour, this drink is one of the finest you’ll find in Los Angeles. It’s a must.

If you one of those guys who loves betting so much that you even lay money down on box office numbers, let’s hope you had week 2 of “Iron Man 3″ beating week one of “The Great Gatsby.” Gatsby opened well with a $50.1 million debut, but Iran Man hung in there after a monster opening weekend to pull in another $72.5 million to win the box office last week. It’s nice to see movies live up to the hype, at least when it comes to ticket sales.

You have to give Marvel credit, as they strung together hit after hit across all of their characters. After “Avengers” I thought the third installment of of the Iron Man franchise could end up being a letdown like we’ve seen so many times in this genre, but Marvel is firing on all cylinders, and there’s something about the Tony Stark character created by Robert Downey, Jr. You see Iron Man merchandise everywhere, including slot machines at the Vegas casinos and even virtual slot machines at Betfair casino.

Next week things will get even more interesting as J.J. Abrams is back with “Star Trek Into Darkness” which has a great shot of winning the weekend. As for hype, Abrams is getting plenty of it. With Star Trek he’s already responsible for reviving one of the great science fiction franchises, and then next year he’ll tackle the big one with the Star Wars franchise. After George Lucas belly flopped with the three prequels, let’s hope Abrams is the right choice to take Luke, Han and the others on a worthwhile journey. At the very least the next Star Wars movie will probably be the easiest box office winner to predict. But in the meantime you’ll have to figure out if the Trekkies can rise to the occasion next week.

Developer: Oak

Compatible with: iPhone 3GS and up (optimized for iPhone 5), iPod touch 3rd gen and up, iPad

Requires: iOS 6.0 or later

Price: $0.99

Available here

A scenario.

It’s 2 A.M. and you’re the kind of drunk that usually only follows a particularly joyous event, or a particularly disastrous one. While concerns such as the bar tab you just threw on your credit card, and that black eye forming over a disagreement over that girl you don’t remember will soon dominate your thoughts, the only worry at the moment is where you can get a slice of pizza in this unknown part of town that you were highly familiar with only four shots ago.

While you can ask a stranger (unlikely and potentially dangerous) or navigate Yelp and Google Maps (not a chance in your current state), what you really need is a digital arrow that simply shows you where the nearest pizza is right damn now.

Such is the purpose of Pizza Compass. Simply spin the app’s pizza icon and you’ll soon be directed to the nearest slice joints, and even be provided with a steaming pizza graphic when you’re in range. Should you have the need, you can also explore the built in map to view all nearby pizza places, and get photos, hours, reviews courtesy of Foursquare, and more.

Described as both a no frills app, and “the most important app ever made,” the makers of Pizza Compass are very aware of both the incredibly simple nature of the program, and the fact it is absolutely essential. You can easily make the well-reasoned and fact based argument that everyone with a soul enjoys pizza, and as such it is highly likely that at some point, you will appreciate having an app that cuts through the crap (as in other food that isn’t pizza) and gets you on the right path to enjoying the greatest thing to ever come in slice form (that’s right…suck it mere bread).

A further scenario. It’s now 2:30 A.M., and you’ve soaked up a medically advisable amount of excess alcohol courtesy of a hot and greasy peperoni pizza, all thanks to Pizza Compass. With the few brain cells left firing, you realize that Pizza Compass is in fact the app of the week.

Baz Luhrmann was born to make “The Great Gatsby.” Dazzling excess, star-crossed lovers, and tragedy are the cornerstones to nearly every movie he’s ever made, and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel has all three in abundance, wrapped in a searing indictment of the pursuit of wealth. All four of those elements of the story are on full display here, but there’s something missing in the execution. For a story with so much passion and longing and regret, it’s surprisingly bloodless. This is not to say that Luhrmann doesn’t hit the emotional buttons; he just doesn’t hit them hard enough. Then again, that may not be Luhrmann’s fault at all, but the source material. A bunch of clueless people ruining their lives by making bad decision after bad decision; it’s like a Mike Leigh movie, with money.

Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is in a sanitarium for a laundry list of conditions (top of the list: morbid alcoholism), and soon begins telling his shrink about the summer of 1922. Nick had taken a job as a bond salesman during the Roaring Twenties, and found a small cottage in the village of West Egg, where he lived next to new-money millionaires. Nick’s cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) lives across the bay from her, and is (unhappily) married to old-money millionaire and unfaithful thug Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). The man who lives next door to Nick is a mysterious fellow named Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Jay would throw massive parties every weekend, but his reason for doing so was surprisingly sweet: he hoped that one day Daisy would attend one of them. Daisy was Gatsby’s girl five years earlier, and once Jay discovers that Nick and Daisy are related, he asks Nick to invite Daisy over for tea. This sets in motion a chain of events that would change the lives of all concerned.

The first act ends with as big of a bang as I’ve seen in the movies in years. The party scenes were as lavish and intoxicating as anything Luhrmann’s ever done – which is saying something – and after conditioning us to hear people from the year 1900 singing modern-day pop songs in “Moulin Rouge!,” it’s funny how easy it was to accept people from the ’20s dancing to Jay-Z and dubstep. The second act, however, was problematic, for a couple of reasons. The pacing is awfully sluggish following the slam-bang first act – he rectifies this with a taut third act – but the real problem is that the characters start exposing their true natures, and with the exception of Nick, they’re all pretty unlikable. This is one of the main points of the book, of course, to wave a finger at pompous blowhards who think they’re important simply because they have money. Gatsby isn’t one of those blowhards, but he’s saddled with an equally distasteful flaw, which undercuts the love story at the movie’s core. Did I use the word tragic to describe this movie in the first paragraph? That’s inaccurate. They’re not tragic: they’re pitiful.

Carey Mulligan has ridiculously expressive eyes. Luhrmann does his best to make her look like the most irresistible woman in the world, while Mulligan does her best to reveal Daisy’s shallow nature. Neither, however, can overcome her limited presence in the book versus her significance to the main character. She’s more of an idea than an actual person, and there is nothing a faithful adaptation of the story can do to change that. DiCaprio does a good job of slowly revealing Gatsby’s obsessive nature, but Gatsby comes off as a supporting player here, so there is only so much DiCaprio can do to improve the film. Tobey Maguire, on the other hand, is a rock-solid narrator, and delivers his finest performance in years. It would be a stretch to say he stole the movie, but this is the best role he’s had in ages, and he makes the most of it. Friends have told us that the movie’s 3D was stunning, but we wouldn’t know: the screening we attended was out of focus and dark, and when a fellow critic talked to the manager about it, she responded by threatening to call the police. That is not a joke.

“The Great Gatsby” was a good idea in theory. Luhrmann clearly reveres the material, and there are some truly magical moments, but it just doesn’t work like one would think it should, and truth be told, it may never work on screen without some major revisions, which creates an entirely different set of problems. Perhaps it’s finally time we just leave this one alone.

Funny thing is, though, I wasn’t joking: I really did get selected to receive a Gary Gnu photo which — unless I very much miss my guess — will bear the signature of puppeteer Jim Martin, who brought Gary to life on the show.

Here, for your reading enjoyment (and possible education) are a few that crossed my mind. Some were on broadcast networks, others were in syndication, but they all clearly left their mark on me in one way or the other, since it’s been at least 30 years since I’ve seen full episodes of most of them. Mind you, that’s not to say that they’d hold up for me now, but I’ll say this much for ‘em: every damned one of the theme songs has a hook that’ll stick in your brain for the long haul…except maybe the one that leads off this list, but, damn, even that’s screaming to be sampled by an industrious DJ somewhere.

1. Curiosity Shop (1971-1973)

Chuck Jones, the man behind some of the most memorable Warner Brothers cartoons of all time, brought his unique sensibilities into a live-action setting for this educational program which, at least as far as ABC was concerned, seemed like a perfect opportunity to pull in some of the audience of this new PBS show called “Sesame Street” which was all the rage for the single-digit set. Thanks to Jones’s cartoon connections, he was able to pull such luminaries as Mel Blanc, June Foray, and Don Messick to give voice to the various characters, but there were also actual cartoons incorporated into the show, including animated adaptations of such comic strips as “Dennis the Menace,” “The Wizard of Id,” and “Miss Peach,” and trivia buffs may also be interested to know that the Schoolhouse Rock song “Three Is A Magic Number” made its debut on the show.

2. New Zoo Revue (1972-1977)

It’s rather hard to wrap one’s brain around the fact that there were 196 episodes of this series, which taught life lessons to youngsters through the actions of Henrietta Hippo, Charlie the Owl, and Freddie the Frog. (Are there even 196 lessons to learn about life?) The trio of animals were guided through their trials and tribulations by their human pals, Doug and Emmy Jo, played by real life couple Doug Momary and Emily Peden, with occasional guidance from their mailman, Mr. Dingle, played under old-age makeup by an often-unrecognizable Chuck Woolery.

3. The Harlem Globetrotters Popcorn Machine (1974)

Why give the Harlem Globetrotters their own live-action Saturday morning series? Because they were already pop culture icons by that point anyway – this was well after the debut of their Saturday morning cartoon – and kids loved them. Why was the show called “The Harlem Globetrotters Popcorn Machine”? Your guess is as good as mine.

4. Big Blue Marble (1974-1983)

In the days before cable, kids’ choices for educational programming beyond “Sesame Street” and “The Electric Company” were pretty limited, but if you were interested in learning about other children your age both in America and elsewhere, “Big Blue Marble” was a great way to expand your knowledge. Some of the segments were done documentary-style, others were dramatizations, but the end result was a lot of new information entering young minds.

5. Uncle Croc’s Block (1975-1976)

You’ll never look at Charles Nelson Reilly the same way again after you watch the film version of his one man show, “The Life of Reilly,” but if you haven’t seen that yet, then you might want to watch some clips from this Filmation series first. A precursor to “Pee-Wee’s Playhouse” with just the tiniest hint of what would now be called an Adult Swim sensibility, Reilly plays Uncle Croc, a very grouchy kids TV show host who hates his job and is perpetually annoyed with the incompetence of his co-workers. Trapped somewhere between being ahead of its time and paying homage to shows that the current Saturday morning viewers didn’t know anything about, “Uncle Croc’s Block” started as an hour-long series, was cut to 30 minutes, then got the axe altogether.

6. Hot Fudge (1976-1980)

This syndicated series had some of the creepier-looking puppets seen on kids TV in the ’70s, but it also had some of the grooviest, funkiest tunes. I have no recollection as to whether it was actually funny, but I sure do remember the songs.

7. Animals, Animals, Animals (1976-1982)

While parents were watching Hal Linden play the title character in the ABC sitcom “Barney Miller,” their kids were enjoying the actor’s side job as the host of this nature show, which was part of a small window of children’s programming offered by the network on Sunday mornings.

8. The Skatebirds (1977-1978)

An unabashed attempt by Hanna-Barbera to duplicate the success of “The Banana Splits” almost a decade before while cashing in on the rollerskating craze that was sweeping the nation, “The Skatebirds” followed the format of the earlier series almost to the letter, using the birds to bookend the various other segments of the show, including “Mystery Island,” “Wonder Wheels,” “Three Robonic Stooges,” and the “Clue Club” spin-off, “Woofer and Whimper: Dog Detectives.” Despite its limited competition on Sunday mornings, “The Skatebirds” most decidedly did not prove to be the next “Banana Splits,” departing the airwaves in under a year.

9. Marlo and the Magic Movie Machine (1977-1980)

Probably the most obscure show on the list, this show starred Laurie Faso as the mustachioed Marlo, a computer whiz whose so-called Magical Movie Machine showed him various film clips and even told the occasional joke. Although it was ostensibly in syndication for three years, it only played in my neck of the woods for a year, as I recall, a fate it likely shared in other regions of the country. Still, dig that ‘stache…

10. Kids Are People Too (1978-1982)

My big memory of this show was that the original host left after a year, and I was glad, because I never particularly liked him. As it turned out, Bob McAllister was a noted TV personality, particularly in New York City, having hosted “Wonderama” for the decade immediately prior to joining “Kids Are People Too.” Just goes to show you what I know. Anyway, McAllister apparently didn’t love the fact that the show was catering more toward a teenage audience than the younger crowd, and his departure led to the arrival of Michael Young, who later became a major player in the world of TV production. The best thing about “Kids,” though, were its guests, who were way hipper than any other kid’s show, including everyone from KISS to Patti Smith, Cheap Trick to Blondie.