Bullz-Eye: So directing Larry David has got to be at least somewhat of a challenge.

Greg Mottola: Um…

BE: I’m not saying good or bad, just…challenging.

GM: It’s… Well, I mean, the process was so specific. I don’t even know if my job title should be called “director” on this movie. [Laughs.] “Associate collaborator” is probably closer to it. But that’s the way it should be. I’m not sure if, in the press notes, they talk so much about how we made it, but essentially it’s the same way Larry does “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” with some key differences. But Larry writes a script-ment, they call it, so this was about 35 pages of paragraphs of what happens in this scene, with an occasional line of dialogue or joke that Larry or his co-writers thought, “Oh, we should definitely get that in.” So they write that in, but, really, no other dialogue.

And we get to the set, we walk through the scene, and we’ll just sort of block it very generally. Like, “You’re gonna enter from that door, you’re gonna be sitting here, you’re gonna come over here, talk about this, you’re gonna leave.” Y’know, just sort of walk through all the little bits of blocking, but never rehearse it at all. So the first time anyone is acting, the cameras are rolling. And it’s usually two cameras, sometimes three if we can squeeze another one in there. And Larry by and large never does the same thing twice. [Laughs.] So as a director, you’re constantly strategizing, “Okay, we did that one time, I’d like to try and get something like that line, maybe in a tighter size, so…let’s switch lenses right now while we’re in the zone, and we’ll swap back and do wide shots again.” So you’re constantly just sort of improvising the directing style as everyone’s improvising the lines.

So directing Larry is just sort of endless conferences between takes about, “We’d like this from that, we didn’t like that,” just sort of honing in on what worked, sometimes stopping entirely and saying, “This doesn’t work at all, let’s start from scratch and just approach it completely differently and do a different version of the scene.” And that happened a few times. We’d have two completely different versions of the same scene…and usually the one that ends up in the movie is the second one. You know, the one thing about Larry is that he’s an absolute pleasure to work with. Despite his sort of screen persona and his point of view about human nature, which—between “Seinfeld” and “Curb”—is pretty clear… [Laughs.] He’s a really happy guy! He’s a guy who walks around whistling and practicing his golf swing. He’s, like, in a good mood 99% of the time. So it’s great to work with him.

BE: I…can’t really wrap my head around that.

GM: [Laughs.] It is hard to believe.

BE: Was it difficult to try and get away from the obvious perception that it feels like an extended “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episode? Because it’s not identical by any stretch, but there are definitely moments where you go, “Oh, this is very ‘Curb’-like…”

GM: You know, the thing that kept me awake at night was the worry that it would be too much like “Curb” or that it’d be not enough like “Curb.” [Laughs.] I was constantly in terror. Like, how far do you deviate from something that works so well, so brilliantly? But also, how do you do it when it’s gonna be 100 minutes long and Larry’s not playing himself and make it feel somehow more like a movie than a TV show? And, y’know, in small ways of just, like, choosing where we were gonna be putting the camera, what the focal length is, how we were gonna shoot things, how often to be in close-up… You sort of go in with an idea of how it’s gonna look different, and inevitably it starts to get closer to the show because… [Hesitates.] I decided, “I’m not gonna fight what works.” But I always looked for an opportunity to make it feel a little bit different.

The thing is, part of it is dictated by the fact that the process is you shooting kind of a performance movie. Since everyone is improvising, you’re trying to capture the performance in the moment and trying to have the character in the right place. So I kept saying to myself, “I’m shooting a concert movie that just happens to be a story.” [Laughs.] And not to overthink it too much, because if I started to impose tricky camera moves and steady-cam shots on it, I’d probably find that the camera was in the wrong place at the wrong time. You have to kind of sort of be patient and sit there. And it leads to a fairly basic camera style, but at the same time, that’s…y’know, a lot of comedy lives somewhere in that wide to medium close-up, and that’s the nature of the beast. And I kept thinking, “What would I be doing if this were 70 years ago and I was hired to direct a W.C. Fields film?” [Laughs.] How would I shoot that?

BE: You know, I’d never thought about Larry David as a modern-day W.C. Fields, but there could be some merit to that.

GM: There’s at least a misanthropy overlap on the Venn diagram. [Laughs.]

BE: So when it came down to casting “Clear History,” was it a case of Larry just calling up people he wanted to work with?

GM: It was a mix. We did read a bunch of people. People who maybe wouldn’t normally read were willing to come in and read for Larry. And part of it is that it’s a chemistry thing. We want to make sure people have chemistry with Larry or with each other. And a lot of them were offer-only kind of folks that we just were confident about. Like, we knew Jon Hamm could do it, that Jon Hamm would be perfect. And Jon Hamm, if you’ve seen him on “SNL” or any other comedy things, he’s super funny. Because of the structure of the story, Larry has to avoid his character, so if anything, I wish there was a way to have more of him in the movie. But it didn’t work for the story. But, y’know, there was lots of discussion of “okay, we’ve got this person, who do we think would work with that?” as we were piecing it together.

Some people in the movie read. I almost don’t want to say who, because it feels a little bit like I’m ranking them. But some people who were in the movie did come in and read. The people who were less obvious. Somebody like Danny McBride, yes, he can do improv comedy. He doesn’t need to prove to us that he can improvise. Some people who hadn’t really done improvisation were, I think, happy to come in and try it, because they needed to prove to themselves that they’d be comfortable doing it. And it was great, because most of them came in saying, “I’m not sure I’m gonna want to do this, but let’s try it.” And by the end of the session, we’re having so much fun that they thought, “Oh, well, no matter how bad I look, this was way too much fun, so I’ve got to try.” [Laughs.]

BE: Larry’s good luck charm is in the film: Philip Baker Hall.

GM: Yes! Well, you know, the movie is so much like a Paul Thomas Anderson film… [Starts laughing.] No, it’s not! But, no, I love Philip Baker Hall. I’ve loved him for a long time. He’s, like, one of my favorite actors on the planet. And he’s been so hilarious on “Curb.” And he was on “Seinfeld.” Yeah, he is a good luck charm.

BE: I did a Random Roles interview with him for the Onion AV Club, and it’s one of my favorite interviews of all time.

GM: Oh, he’s amazing. He’s an incredibly sharp, funny guy. And he’s a great guy. You know, he just came in and started improvising things as if he’d been doing that job for the last 50 years. And he’s one of the people who makes Larry more than any other person on earth, because he’s so dry, and he never breaks himself, and the more serious he becomes, the more Larry ruins the take. [Laughs.] So it’s a very nice dynamic.

As a quick sidebar, I don’t usually incorporate moments from TCA panels into interviews, but in this case, I can’t resist, since I managed to ask Larry during the “Clear History” session about the great PBH and what it is about him that makes him break where others don’t:

“This guy, nobody, nobody ever makes me laugh as hard as Philip Baker Hall, starting with ‘Seinfeld’ when he played the librarian, and then I think he did three ‘Curb’s. Well, maybe two, I don’t know. But in both those episodes, he just…he just kills me. It takes so long for me do a scene with him. He never breaks, and he just has this straight-laced way about him that breaks me up. I love him.”

BE: I’m curious: you’re a director, but how did you come to play a director (“Celebrity”), then an assistant director (“Hollywood Ending”), for Woody Allen?

GM: I got a call because, when Woody Allen was shooting “Celebrity,” the opening of the movie was going to have a director directing Melanie Griffith, and it was going to be Sidney Lumet, who Woody was friendly with. And Sidney was actually my teacher at film school. He was the greatest guy on earth. But Sidney had a film that the schedule changed and moved up, and he wasn’t available. And they were scrambling, they were close to shooting, and a mutual friend of mine, Doug McGrath, an old friend, he’d written “Bullets over Broadway” with Woody, and Woody’s casting people said, “Well, maybe let’s get some New York indie director.” And Woody had liked my little first film, “Daytrippers,” and Doug said, “Oh, Greg acts, you should have him come in and read.” And that was an entire lie. I don’t act. I’ve only acted in, like, film school films…and I was terrible! . [Laughs.]

But I had to come in and try. So I actually auditioned for his casting people and then for him, and I got the part. And Woody told me, he thought “Daytrippers”…he said [Does Woody Allen impression.] “You know, your film’s terrific!” You could’ve killed me right there. But I was, like, “Oh, great, now I have nothing to look forward to!” [Laughs.] No, it was amazing. And then Woody’s people called me a couple of years later and said, “Do you want to play an assistant director?” I was demoted in “Hollywood Ending.” If he ever calls me again, I know it’s gonna be to play a gopher. Maybe a P.A.

But the other incidental thing… At the time, I became friendly with Woody’s assistant who he had on the movie, and she ended up becoming my wife. So I met my wife on “Hollywood Ending.” And the super cool part is, Woody loves my wife, and we get to go out to dinner or lunch with them every couple of months, which is amazing.

BE: I can’t believe he’s actually considering going back to stand-up. That’s, like, the best news ever.

GM: I think…I mean, he has told my wife that he’s considered it before, but it sounds like… If he’s talking about it in the press, he must really be thinking about it. Because he doesn’t bring that stuff up if he’s not starting to really… I guess Louis C.K. must’ve really had that influence.

BE: I was just about to say that that’s basically what Louis C.K. said about the buddy comedy with him and Woody: “I didn’t want to say anything and jinx it, but if he’s talking about it, then I guess it’s okay!”

GM: [Laughs.] Yeah, I saw that.

BE: Lastly, since I know you’re on a tight schedule, how was the experience of making a sci-fi comedy like “Paul”?

GM: Um, the experience of making a comedy with a CG main character was…challenging. Because we weren’t really given a schedule that allowed for a CG main character. [Laughs.] I mean, we had to work pretty fast. We were shooting on, like, sort of a normal studio comedy schedule, and then we’d have to stop endlessly for gray ball passes and stills. All these effects guys that come in, they might as well be wearing HazMat suits. They come in, they’ve got, like, surveyors equipment, and they do all this shit that takes forever, and you’re going, “I’m losing light, I’m losing light, what the fuck are you doing?” And then it’s, like, “Okay, and now we’ve got five minutes to shoot the scene.” So we had to work really fast, and it just made it a little hard.

But we also had so much fun making it. I mean, “Paul” was a great experience. But I’m not so sure how quickly I’d go back to doing CG, because it also takes forever to finish it. And, y’know, I was limited, because of the budget we had. Like, I’d literally have to go through and they would make me say in the edit how many times we’d see the alien in the scene, and if it’d be a wide shot or a close-up or an over, and they’d want to just fill in numbers to budget. So I had to decide. I was just limited to what I could do, often. I had to shoot a little more like TV, because I had to keep the alien in close-ups or know where he goes in a wide shot, because every time he appeared it’d be thousands of dollars in animation and all that stuff. It makes you go a little insane after awhile.

I just saw Simon Pegg last night, actually, who was coming through town on his “World’s End” tour, which I can’t wait to see, and…that was a fantastic experience. I loved Working Title, and Universal was great. I honestly don’t know why they let us make that movie. [Laughs.] I think the world has changed enough since we made that movie that it’d be really hard for somebody to say “yes” to it now. But…I hope to use CG again someday. Maybe it’ll surprise me.

As a film critic, you learn to keep your expectations to a minimum, because more often than not, the movie in question is never as good as you hoped. That doesn’t change the fact that there are still some movies that you want to see more than others, and as long as you don’t mind the possibility of disappointment, it’s okay to let your inner fanboy out every once in a while. This year certainly has plenty of movies to get excited about – at least, that’s what Hollywood is banking on with an upcoming slate that includes “Pirates of the Caribbean 4,” “Cars 2,” “Green Lantern,” “Captain America: The First Avenger” and “Thor” – but there’s a lot more great stuff out there than just the usual summer tentpole films. To give you a better idea of what’s coming to theaters this year, I’ve assembled my 11 most anticipated movies of 2011 with the hope that you might discover one or two titles to add to your own must-see list.

“PAUL”

Who: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig and Jason Bateman
What: Two British sci-fi geeks on a cross-country road trip through the U.S. encounter a real-life alien named Paul who needs help getting back to his home planet.
When: March 18th
Why: The trailer may not instill a whole lot of confidence with its heavy dose of juvenile humor, but as a fan of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (who also co-wrote the film), it’s hard to imagine them disappointing their fanbase. I wouldn’t necessarily expect anything as great as “Shaun of the Dead” or “Hot Fuzz,” but between all the geeky sci-fi references and the awesome supporting cast (including Jason Bateman as the FBI agent on their trail and Seth Rogen as the voice of the titular alien), it’s safe to say that “Paul” will be every bit as funny as it sounds.

“HANNA”

Who: Saorsie Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett and Olivia Williams
What: A girl raised by her father to be the perfect assassin is sent on a mission across Europe while eluding operatives under the command of a ruthless CIA agent.
When: April 8th
Why: Director Joe Wright may be best known for sappy period dramas like “Pride and Prejudice” and “Atonement,” but I can’t wait to see what he can do in a completely different genre – especially one that provides him with a bigger playground to work within. The trailer seems to suggest that “Hanna” will be more than just your average action-thriller, with Wright aiming for something a little more thought provoking. And with a cast that includes Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, and one of the best young actresses in the business in Saorsie Ronan, this could be the surprise hit of the season.

“X-MEN: FIRST CLASS”

Who: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Jennifer Lawrence, Rose Byrne, January Jones, Nicholas Hoult, Lucas Till and Jason Flemyng
What: The story of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) as young men learning to control their powers, and how they worked together with a band of mutants to stop the greatest threat the world has ever known.
When: June 3rd
Why: Apart from the fact that it takes place in the 1960s and serves as a prequel to the original trilogy, details on “X-Men: First Class” are pretty scarce. But after walking away from the directing gig on the last “X-Men” film, I think that most fans are curious to see what Matthew Vaughn can do with the franchise. The retro setting definitely has my interest piqued, and using the relationship between Xavier and Lehnsherr as a parallel to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X is brilliant. That hasn’t stopped Internet forums from stirring up bad buzz in response to the recently leaked photos and rumors that Vaughn is feeling pressed for time, but he doesn’t have a bad movie to his name yet, so it’s probably better to just let the film speak for itself.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART TWO

Who: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman and Ralph Fiennes
What: Harry returns to Hogwarts with Ron and Hermione to find and destroy Voldemort’s remaining Horcruxes, leading to the inevitable battle between the Boy Who Lived and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
When: July 15th
Why: The real question is, who isn’t looking forward to this movie? The previous seven films have grossed over $6 billion worldwide, and where most franchises tend to lose steam around the third installment, this series has only gotten better over time. They’ve also gotten progressively darker, and “Deathly Hallows: Part Two” promises to be the darkest yet, with the massive Battle of Hogwarts resulting in the death of several major players – some good, some bad, and some whose allegiance remains a secret. I’m still holding out hope that the movie will dive a little further into Dumbledore’s past, because “Part One” covered so much of the book that the only thing left is the battle.

“WINNIE THE POOH”

Who: Jim Cummings, John Cleese, Craig Ferguson and Tom Kenny
What: A collection of classic Winnie the Pooh stories including “In Which Eeyore Loses a Tail and Pooh Finds One” and “In Which Rabbit Has a Busy Day.”
When: July 15th
Why: Of all my selections, this is undoubtedly the one that will raise the most eyebrows, but there’s a certain nostalgic factor that has me really excited about a new “Winnie the Pooh” film – especially one created using traditional, hand-drawn animation. The art design looks incredible (polished but respectful to the original characters) and the trailer suggests a clever, breaking-the-fourth-wall angle to the story that involves the real world bleeding into the storybook world. And if that’s not enough to win you over, Zooey Deschanel will be lending her bubbly-twang voice to the classic “Winnie the Pooh” song. It’s just too bad that it won’t have a chance to find an audience, because Disney has foolishly decided to open the film on the same weekend as the final installment of the “Harry Potter” saga. Oh bother, indeed.

“30 MINUTES OR LESS”

Who: Jesse Eisenberg, Danny McBride, Nick Swardson and Aziz Ansari
What: A small-town pizza delivery boy is kidnapped by two wannabe criminals and forced to rob a bank.
When: October 5th
Why: This one almost missed the cut solely because of Danny McBride’s involvement – whose arrogant redneck shtick is really starting to get on my nerves – but I’m willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt if only because it reunites Jesse Eisenberg with “Zombieland” director Ruben Fleisher. It’s really nice to see that Eisenberg isn’t taking his career too seriously, because he’s just as great in comedies as he is in more serious fare like “The Social Network.” The wild cards are McBride, Aziz Ansari and Nick Swardson – all funny men who sometimes try too hard for a laugh – but if Fleisher can rein them in, “30 Seconds or Less” has the potential to be this year’s “The Hangover.”

“WARRIOR”

Who: Tom Hardy, Nick Nolte, Joel Edgerton and Jennifer Morrison
What: The son of a former boxer is trained by his alcoholic father to compete in a mixed martial arts tournament where he’ll face off against his older brother.
When: September 9th
Why: The rise of MMA has already ushered in a few movies about the popular combat sport (“Redbelt,” “Never Back Down”), but none of them have really done it any justice. Granted, it’s still a little early to know whether “Warrior” will be any different, but it certainly has the right ingredients to become the next great fight film, and it all starts with Tom Hardy. If the British-born actor isn’t a huge movie star in the next few years, then Hollywood has gotten it all wrong, because this guy just oozes charisma. It’s no “Inception,” but “Warrior” looks to be yet another great stepping stone for one of the most promising actors in the business.

“DRIVE”

Who: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman, Albert Brooks and Christina Hendricks
What: A Hollywood stuntman who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put out on him after a heist gone wrong.
When: November 9th
Why: It might sound like a direct-to-DVD action movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr., but you needn’t look any further than the amazing cast that director Nicholas Winding Refn has assembled to realize that there’s probably more to “Drive” than meets the eye. Ryan Gosling, in particular, has a pretty good track record when it comes to picking interesting projects, and I find it hard to believe that he’d follow up his award-nominated performance in “Blue Valentine” with some ordinary genre flick. That doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, but even if “Drive” is just your run-of-the-mill action-thriller, at least we know it’ll be entertaining with the people involved.

“THE MUPPETS”

Who: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Paul Rudd and Chris Cooper
What: Gary and his Muppet roommate, Walter, team up with Kermit the Frog and Co. to save their old theater from an evil oil tycoon.
When: November 23rd
Why: Jim Henson’s Muppets have had their share of ups and downs over the years, but a comeback has been cultivating for quite some time now (due in part to a series of viral videos starring the motley crew), and a feature film is exactly the push they need. As a fan, it’s nice to see that the new movie will be in good hands as well, written by Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel, who proved their own Muppet love by featuring Henson-styled puppets in their comedy, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” and being directed by James Bobin of “Flight of the Conchords” fame. Additionally, Conchords member Bret McKenzie will be providing music for the movie, and the list of cameos already includes the likes of Zach Galifianakis, Ricky Gervais, Billy Crystal, Emily Blunt, and some that are so top secret not even Segel himself will divulge the details. What’s not to be excited about?

“MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL

Who: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton and Josh Holloway
What: Super-spy Ethan Hunt enlists a new recruit for help in his most dangerous mission yet.
When: December 16th
Why: There’s so little known about the latest installment of “Mission: Impossible” that I had to fake my way through the above plot summary. In fact, the only thing we do know is that the movie will act as a passing-of-the-torch of sorts between Tom Cruise and Jeremy Renner, with the latter intended to become the new face of the franchise should they decide to make any more. And although “Mission: Impossible 3” is arguably the best film in the series, with J.J. Abrams returning as executive producer (as well as conceiving the story), Pixar alumni Brad Bird directing, and a cast that includes Cruise, Renner, Simon Pegg and “Lost” favorite Josh Holloway, “Ghost Protocol” looks like it could easily take over that spot.

“THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO”

Who: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Stellan Skarsgaard, Robin Wright, Joely Richardson and Christopher Plummer
What: A disgraced journalist investigates the disappearance of the niece of a wealthy business magnate with the help of a young female hacker.
When: December 21st
Why: Hollywood remakes of foreign films aren’t usually met with a whole lot of enthusiasm, but in the case of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (which is technically being adapted from the bestselling Steig Larsson novel of the same name), everyone is waiting to see how David Fincher puts his own stamp on the material. It’s already been confirmed that the movie is shooting in Sweden, but will the actors speak with Swedish accents, and can Rooney Mara live up to the impossible expectations of playing one of this generation’s most iconic heroines only a few short years after Noomi Rapace’s career-making performance in the same role? I’m certainly curious to find out, because if anyone can improve upon the Swedish version (a solid thriller in its own right, but not definitive by any means), it’s Fincher.