Since his breakout role as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Andy Serkis has established himself as one of the most brilliantly transformative actors in modern Hollywood. Obviously a big part of it is his dedication to and expertise in the world of performance capture, but even when it comes to his “live-action” parts he rarely appears as he does in everyday life.

All that being said, you wouldn’t necessarily expect him to bring that same kind of energy to a role in a comedy like Jonathan Levine’s Long Shot, and yet he did… with absolutely nobody actually telling him to do it.

I learned the full story about Andy Serkis’ serious commitment when I attended the Los Angeles press day for Long Shot late month and had the pleasure of sitting down with the director and stars. Having gotten word about Serkis’ special initiative in the making of the movie, I first brought up the actor’s work during my interview with Seth Rogen and Charlize Theron, and both of them expressed their genuine surprise about their co-stars’ transformation into the role of Australian media mogul Parker Wembley:

The same sentiment was echoed later by Jonathan Levine, who confirmed that nobody actually asked Andy Serkis to sit in the make-up chair for many hours each day so that he could fully embody his vision of the character. At the same time, though, the director ultimately came to the realization of what the actor was doing, and got to understand the importance of physicality in the parts that Serkis takes on. Said Levine,

In Long Shot, Andy Serkis’ Parker Wembley is basically halfway between Rupert Murdoch and Richard Branson, and is quickly introduced to the story as an antagonist. He winds up purchasing the independent newspaper for which Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) works as a reporter, and because Flarsky disagrees with Wembley’s politics he decides to quit. This quickly establishes legitimate conflict, but his role becomes more substantial because of his interest in gaining influence over Secretary of State Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), who has ambitions to run for President of the United States.

Andy Serkis’ level of devotion to his craft should be obvious to this point, but what makes the whole thing even more jaw-dropping is the extra detail that Seth Rogen dropped during our conversation. After all, it’s one thing to be willing to sit in a make-up chair for six hours every day, but the choice becomes even more extreme when you learn that sometimes he would go through the entire process and then not shoot a single frame of footage:

This is pretty insane to think about, particularly when you consider that actors regularly complain about the process of going through extreme transformations – but perhaps it’s a bit like taking long car trips: if you go on them regularly enough, eventually you just kind of get numb to their monotony.

You'll obviously be able to see Andy Serkis' full performance in the film, but he can briefly be spotted a couple times in the trailers - the first being in the screenshot above, and a second time in the shot below:

Regardless of exactly how Andy Serkis was able to put himself through that painstaking process in the making of Long Shot, at the end of the day it was something for which Jonathan Levine expressed extreme admiration and appreciation. Said the director,

You can watch Seth Rogen, Charlize Theron, and Jonathan Levine discuss their time working with Andy Serkis in the making of Long Shot by clicking play on the video below.

Also starring O’Shea Jackson Jr., Ravi Patel, June Diane Raphael, Alexander Skarsgard, and Bob Odenkirk, Long Shot is a romantic comedy that ultimately follows the relationship between the aforementioned Fred Flarsky and Charlotte Field, the latter having previously been the former’s babysitter. After losing his job, Flarsky winds up becoming a part of Field’s speechwriting team, and while he starts to learn how to not constantly get in his own way, she is also inspired to stand up for the ideals in which she believes. It’s one of the best comedies of the year so far, so be sure to look for it in a theater near you when it’s released this Friday.

A few months back we got word of some rumors regarding possible forward motion for Coming To America 2. Because there weren't any firm details, it was news that was fairly easy to ignore - but evidently the project isn't going away. In fact, it's actually just picked up two essential pieces of the larger puzzle as Jonathan Levine has been tapped to direct the sequel, and Kenya Barris will be handling the screenplay.

This news comes to us from The Hollywood Reporter, which adds that Barris will be reworking a script penned by Barry Blaustein and David Sheffield - the writers of the 1988 original Coming To America. The project is still very much in early stages, and while there apparently isn't an official deal on the table just yet, it is expected that Eddie Murphy will star in the comedy and reprise his role as Prince Akeem. There's no word yet if we can expect the return of Arsenio Hall, James Earl Jones, Shari Headley and John Amos as well.

In the original Coming To America, Eddie Murphy starred as a young African prince who has become dissatisfied with being rich and powerful, and wants to find a wife who will appreciate him as a normal person. In order to accomplish this mission, he travels across the Atlantic and decides to live in squalor in Queens, New York. He winds up finding that love in Lisa McDowell (Shari Headley), and despite clashing families and romantic competition, they wind up living together happily ever after. Or at least that's what we think - Coming To America 2 could wind up totally changing that particular narrative.

For his part, Kenya Barris doesn't have a ton of experience in the film realm - having spent most of his career working on/creating shows like Black-ish, America's Next Top Model, and The Game - but he has had success in the medium all the same. In 2016 he wrote the script for the shockingly good sequel Barbershop: The Next Cut, and this summer reunited with director Malcolm D Lee to write the hit comedy Girls Trip.

Jonathan Levine hasn't had quite the level of success that Kenya Barris has had in 2017, as Snatched didn't do so hot when it was released in May, but that definitely doesn't undermine him as an extremely talented filmmaker. Some of his best features include 50/50, Warm Bodies, The Night Before, and The Wackness, and Coming To America 2 will be his first venture into sequel territory. He has some big shoes to fill given that the original was directed by John Landis, but we have high hopes for his success.

Coming To America 2 doesn't have a release date, so we'll have to wait and see how fast it winds up going through the development process.

Given the central premise of director Jonathan Levine's new comedy Snatched, tone is a tricky thing. Although the movie goes for laughs at each possible moment, the stakes of the story are generated by a plot that involves being kidnapped and pursued by criminals in a foreign country. It forced the filmmakers to do some tricky maneuvering through the film's post-production process... but also led to the cutting of what sounds like could be a very funny scene involving a game of strip poker.

During the Los Angeles press day for Snatched late last month, I had my own mother by my side interviewing the cast and filmmakers behind the movie -- and when sitting down with Jonathan Levine and producer Paul Feig she asked about cut sequences they were sad to lose in editing. The filmmakers explained they were sad to lose a sequence involving a bit of gratuitous nudity that they thought was hilarious -- but then explained why it didn't make the theatrical print:

Funny enough, I actually know that this scene was still included in Snatched up until just a few weeks ago, as I spoke with stars Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn about it in late March. That being said, for all of the reasons Jonathan Levine mentions it makes sense that this bit didn't make it into the film. In the sequence in question, Schumer and Hawn's characters have just narrowly escaped capture, and it would be somewhat throttling to see them suddenly become engaged in a game of strip poker.

As for Paul Feig, he had his own favorite deleted scene from Snatched that he wanted to highlight:

You can watch Jonathan Levine and Paul Feig talk about the deleted strip poker scene in Snatched in the video below!

Snatched, which does still contain some nudity in addition to plenty of other R-rated shenanigans, is in theaters this Friday, May 12th, and be sure to head over here to watch our conversation with Amy Schumer and Goldie Hawn!

There's no denying that Suicide Squad will go down as one of 2016's most interesting films. Despite the critical lashing it received, the movie made a ton of money -- thus guaranteeing a sequel. In fact, the DCEU took a seriously fascinating turn when it was announced that Mel Gibson is being considered to helm the project. However, Gibson's involvement isn't set in stone, and it now seems that DC has also considered Ruben Fleischer and Jonathan Levine to potentially take on the project as well.

A new report from Variety confirms that Warner Bros. and DC have considered Zombieland's Ruben Fleischer and Warm Bodies' Jonathan Levine to helm the upcoming Suicide Squad sequel if Mel Gibson doesn't pan out. The film is obviously in the very earliest stages of development, so at this point, it remains to be seen who DC will ultimately opt to sign for the project. Only one thing is clear at this stage: Suicide Squad 2 is already attracting some compelling filmmaking talent.

When it comes to Ruben Fleischer, there's an easy case to be made that he's a solid pick to helm Suicide Squad 2. His work on Zombieland established him as a filmmaker who delivers action and comedy in equal measure -- along with a healthy degree of human emotion. Beyond that, Zombieland shares quite a few visual similarities to Suicide Squad, such as fourth wall breaks and information directly projected onto the screen. Stylistically speaking, he's very consistent with what David Ayer established in the first film.

By contrast, Jonathan Levine has considerably less experience with straightforward action, but his filmography is chock full of offbeat comedies that could easily match the tone and style necessary for a Suicide Squad movie. He also has experience adapting literary material into a feature length film from his work on Warm Bodies, so he could represent the right choice to translate Task Force X to the silver screen in a more faithful way than David Ayer ever could. It's also worth mentioning that Levine was at one time considered to take on the Spider-Man franchise, so there's ample precedent for him to potentially work within the superhero genre.

One of the most interesting elements of this development is the fact that there is apparently no definitive frontrunner to helm Suicide Squad 2 yet. Mel Gibson is the biggest name in the running, and he was the first name announced in relation to the project, but at this point it's anyone's guess as to who will take the reins for the film. We have already spoken at length regarding why Gibson may be the best choice, but Fleischer and Levine would both represent extraordinary opportunities as well.

We will bring you more information related to Suicide Squad 2 as more details become available to us. The film is currently in development at DC.

This poll is no longer available.

The various trailers that have been released for Jonathan Levine’s The Night Before have done a good job painting the movie as a fun, holiday-set stoner comedy - but while that’s a partially fair assessment, the director didn’t exactly look to those kinds of films when he was putting the feature together. Instead, he actually looked to the work of filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, and Spike Lee – specifically After Hours, Eyes Wide Shut, and 25th Hour.

Levine mentioned these three titles when I had the chance to sit down with him earlier this month during a Los Angeles press day for The Night Before. While discussing the comedy, I told him that the film very much reminded me of After Hours - being a dark comedy that plays out over the course of one night – and the director confirmed not only was the Scorsese film a reference point for himself and cinematographer Brandon Trost, but that it was one of the three titles mentioned above. Despite being tonally different from what The Night Before was going for, the Kubrick film, for example, helped them grasp a sense of the atmosphere the director wanted to create. He explained,

Levine unfortunately didn’t go in-depth about exactly what 25th Hour added to the palette while making The Night Before, but he did explain his movie’s relationship to Scorsese’s aforementioned 1984 comedy. From that film, he respected its ability to stay entirely grounded, while also keeping the audience completely unaware of what’s going to be thrown at the protagonist next. Said the director,

Watching The Night Before, you’ll clearly see references to and inspiration from everything from A Christmas Carol to Home Alone, but given the comedy’s special structure it’s interesting to know the more dramatic titles that wound up feeding into Jonathan Levine’s vision for the movie. The good news is that all of it adds up to the funniest film of 2015.

The Night Before arrives in theaters this Friday, November 20th.

Earlier this year saw an interesting battle going on behind the scenes in Hollywood, as Marvel Studios worked to find a filmmaker to take the helm of their upcoming Spider-Man movie. The company wound up selecting Cop Car director Jon Watts for the gig, but considered a number of names before him – including The Night Before director Jonathan Levine. When this was reported, we were very excited about the prospect of the filmmaker taking on the blockbuster – though it turns out that talks didn’t actually progress that far.

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of sitting down with Jonathan Levine to talk about his hilarious new Christmas comedy, and it was towards the end of our conversation that I asked him about the talks that he has had with Marvel Studios. In addition to Spider-Man, he was also one of the directors they talked to for Doctor Strange (a job that eventually went to Scott Derrickson). So what has been the nature of their relationship to this point? Levine explained:

Noting that each of Levine’s films have been very different and distinct in terms of approach and tone, I followed up by asking if making a big blockbuster was something that he was specifically interested in taking on (none of his movies have had a budget bigger than $50 million). Levine then told me that was actually something that wound up making him somewhat “trigger shy” when it came to fully diving into a Marvel Studios project. Acknowledging them as “the authors of their movies,” he noted that he feels a certain comfortability working with 50/50 and The Night Before collaborators Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen that he wouldn’t necessarily have on the set of a much larger production. Said the Warm Bodies filmmaker,

Rather than going the blockbuster route, instead Jonathan Levine is working on another comedy as his next project. Back in August it was reported that he was in talks to direct Amy Schumer in a new mother/daughter story from The Heat screenwriter Katie Dippold, and at the end of my interview the filmmaker told me that it’s what he thinks he will do as his Night Before follow-up. That project doesn’t currently have a production start or release date.

While we wait for Jonathan Levine’s collaboration with Amy Schumer, and hopefully a future collaboration with Marvel Studios, I highly recommend that you go see The Night Before, in theaters this Friday, November 20th.

Amy Schumer is ready to become the biggest new actress in comedy. This summer, she had an absolutely gigantic hit in Trainwreck - which was lauded by critics and has made more than $110 million worldwide - and as a result there are many eyes now watching to see what her next move will be. If new reports are to be believed, it looks like that project will be a mother-daughter comedy that is set up at Fox, and it appears that the fantastically talented Jonathan Levine is in talks to direct.

In case you couldn't tell, the project doesn't actually have a title just yet, bu Deadline says that the movie is based on an original script written by Katie Dippold - the screenwriter behind The Heat and co-writer of Paul Feig's upcoming Ghostbusters reboot. At this time, there don't appear to be any story details currently available, though the script is apparently based on Dippold's experiences with her own mother.

Amy Schumer has been getting more and more popular the last few years, with her Comedy Central series Inside Amy Schumer really helping her gain popularity. Trainwreck, however, has been her biggest and most notable success thus far. At this time, it seems as though the only other major project competing for Schumer's attention is the Weinstein Company-produced two-hander Plus One, which is already set to star Jessica Chastain. That movie sees Chastain's character as a recent divorcee who discovers that all of her friends are married with the exception of Summer, the loud, obnoxious member of her friend circle (and the role that the studio wants for Schumer).

Director Jonathan Levine is actually experiencing a similar career trajectory to Amy Schumer, as he has spent the last few years establishing himself as a seriously talented young director. He first gained notoriety for the 2006 horror movie All The Boys Love Mandy Lane, and the 2008 indie drama The Wackness, but in 2011 he earned massive critical acclaim for 50/50 and wound up hitting it big at the box office with 2013's Warm Bodies. His next feature, the Christmas-themed The Night Before starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, and Anthony Mackie, will be in theaters this November.

It should be noted that this potential mother-daughter comedy with Amy Schumer isn't exactly a slam dunk yet for the director. This is both because he is only in early talks for the film, and because he has two other potential projects on his plate: an adaptation of the documentary Brooklyn Castle, and the pilot for the Jim Carrey Showtime series I’m Dying Up Here.

Should both Amy Schumer and Jonathan Levine agree to be a part of the untitled mother-daughter comedy, the project will immediately become one of the more interesting titles in Hollywood - so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it happens.

Marvel Studios is still reportedly hunting for the actor that they want to play the new version of Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but that’s far from the only major decision they will soon have to make about the wall-crawler’s future. While the next solo film for the character is still more than two years away, the studio understands the importance of locking in a director to creatively guide the project, and the hunt is on to find the right filmmaker for the gig. They still haven’t found their ultimate choice, but this week we got an interesting look into the options that they are considering.

A shortlist of filmmakers being considered for the Spider-Man directing gig found its way online this week, and it’s an interesting group of directors to say the least. This list includes Jon Watts, the director of the acclaimed 2015 Sundance hit Cop Car; John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein, the helmers of the upcoming Vacation reboot; Ted Melfi of St. Vincent fame; and Jonathan Levine, best known as the man behind 50/50 and Warm Bodies. Each of these choices would be interesting for their own reasons, and in this week’s episode we dissect the positives and negatives of each one.

Joining me for this lively discussion is Cinema Blend’s own resident Spider-Man superfan Sean O’Connell, who brings some interesting insight about these possible choices and what they could bring to the table. Enjoy Hero Blend #62!

With the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Spider-Man set to debut in next year’s Captain America: Civil War, then lead his own film in 2017, the race to get the creative talent behind the Wall-Crawler is nearing the finish line. This past weekend, it was reported that six actors had been screen-tested for the next live-action Peter Parker. Now, after an original list of 12 individuals, the director choices for the next Spider-Man solo movie have been narrowed down to five finalists, and they’re an eclectic bunch.

According to Deadline, Ted Melfi and Jonathan Levine are Marvel and Sony’s favorites being looked at for the next film. Ted Melfi’s most notable work is helming the 2014 Bill Murray film St. Vincent, while Levine has directed films like 50/50 and Warm Bodies. Also still in contention for the Spidey film are John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein, the directors behind the upcoming National Lampoon film Vacation. The surprise fifth candidate that’s listed is Jon Watts, who was behind Clown and the upcoming Kevin Bacon vehicle, Cop Car. The article points out that it’s unclear whether whoever fills the director’s chair will also write the script, as Marvel and Sony are also meeting with several scriptwriters, as well. Whoever is chosen as director, they will inherit the mantle left behind by previous Spidey creative minds Sam Raimi and Marc Webb.

Although there hasn’t been much news on the Spider-Man director front, several of these names are already familiar. Melfi, Levine and Daley & Goldstein were all reported to be in contention last month, so it looks they made it through that round of vetting. Pitch Perfect’s Jason Moore and Napoleon Dynamite’s Jared Hess were mentioned to be candidates, but it looks like that either wasn’t true or they didn’t make the cut. It was also rumored earlier in the year that The Cabin in the Woods director Drew Goddard (who was also slated to direct the now-delayed Sinister Six film) was up for the gig, but it looks like that’s no longer in the cards, either.

With the Spider-Man solo film a little over two years away, Marvel and Sony will have to work fast to pick the right person to lead the project if they want to stay on schedule. Currently the Spider-Man film and Thor: Ragnarok are the only pre-2018 Marvel films that don’t have directors attached yet. If Marvel has already picked Joe and Anthony Russo to direct the Avengers: Infinity War films and is looking at candidates for Black Panther, it’s more than likely that we’ll find out who will take Spider-Man into their hands in the next couple of months, if not at the latest by the end of the year.

You can expect to see the new Spider-Man in action when Captain America: Civil War opens on May 6, 2016, with the Web-Slinger’s solo adventure swinging into theaters on July 28, 2017.

A couple months ago, news began springing up online saying that Marvel Studios had selected Drew Goddard as the director of their upcoming Spider-Man movie. This made a degree of sense, given that Goddard had previously worked with Marvel on the Daredevil Netflix series, and even had some connections to Spider-Man thanks to his development of Sinister Six with Sony. If new reports are to be believed, however, the race to find a Spider-Man director is still on – and apparently Drew Goddard is no longer in the running.

Deadline has published what they claim to be a shortlist of directors who are currently being considered by Marvel for the Spider-Man gig, and it’s definitely an interesting group. You can read about all five of the possible choices below:

Jonathan Levine

Writer/director Jonathan Levine made his first big box office success with Warm Bodies back in 2013, but the truth is that the guy has been doing great stuff just slightly under the radar for years. He began turning heads with The Wackness in 2008, but scored huge with critics making the 2011 cancer dramedy 50/50 starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen. It should be noted that this isn’t the first time that Levine has found himself on a shortlist for a Marvel Studios project, as there were talks last year that said he was one of the candidates to potentially make Doctor Strange (that gig wound up going to Scott Derrickson).

Ted Melfi

Though he only made his directorial debut last year, up-and-comer Ted Melfi is clearly starting to turn heads. His film St. Vincent - which he also wrote – got a positive reception from critics when it was released in 2014, and while Bill Murray was the real headliner of that project, it’s understandable why Melfi might be targeted for Spider-Man. This is because he actually got a rather fantastic performance out of young actor Jaeden Lieberher, who was starring in his first feature film. Given that Marvel is looking to cast a legitimately teenage actor to play Peter Parker in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it makes sense to hire a filmmaker who knows how to get a good turn out of a young performer.

Jason Moore

Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige has said that one portion of the Spider-Man character the Marvel Cinematic Universe will definitely capitalize on is the humor of the hero, and that very well could explain why Jason Moore is one of the filmmakers that they are considering. After spending years in television, Moore only broke out in features a couple years ago, but did so in a big way making the surprise 2012 hit Pitch Perfect. Since then he has been working on the Tina Fey-Amy Poehler comedy Sisters, which will be hitting theaters this December.

John Francis Daley & Jonathan M. Goldstein

Remember what I was saying about the comedic approach to the project? That sentiment definitely goes the same for John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein. The two filmmakers actually only entered into the directing game very recently with their debut Vacation - due out in theaters this summer – but they have been behind some big titles in the last few years as writers, working on projects like Horrible Bosses, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and the animated Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2. If they are ultimately chosen by Marvel, it will definitely have us judging Vacation a whole lot differently.

Jared Hess

Jared Hess’ career has been one of ups and downs since breaking out in 2004 with Napoleon Dynamite, since making less successful titles like 2006’s Nacho Libre starring Jack Black, and 2009’s Gentlemen Broncos with Jemaine Clement. After a six year absence from the big screen, however, Hess is actually back in a big way in 2015, releasing not only the mystery comedy Don Verdean with Sam Rockwell, and the crime laugher Masterminds starring Kristen Wiig, Owen Wilson, and Zach Galifianakis.

Of these options, who would you like to see take the helm of Marvel and Sony’s 2017 Spider-Man movie? Answer in our poll below, and tell us what you think in the comments section.

This poll is no longer available.

Dr. William Rush is among the newest characters arriving at USA this summer. Tom Ellis plays the title role in Jonathan Levine's drama about a "medical fixer" who takes care of the often urgent medical needs of Los Angeles' elite. Of course, Rush's services don't come cheap, but no one said quality and discretion does. The new trailer begins with Dr. Rush ushering an inebriated woman toward the emergency room while assuring her it's a new club. And later we see him preparing to assist a man who broke his something.

USA hasn't released much information about the supporting characters in the series, but those relationships related to the job will likely play a factor in the ongoing plot of the show. And the trailer gives us a glimpse of that.

Armed with braininess, resourcefulness and charm, Rush is said to be a hard-partying doctor, and he claims he doesn't pass judgment on his clients. But he's not immune to the ugliness he tends to encounter in his line of work. The above trailer follows the previously released 30-second spot, which emphasizes Rush's policy to treat the people who pay.

So is it all about the money? It's probably safe to assume that personal investment plays a part, or it will sooner or later. It'll be great to see how Tom Ellis tackles this character, and just as great to see how the character fits in among USA's evolving slate of quirky leads. And as a fan of Jonathan Levine's feature work -- Warm Bodies and The Wackness included -- I'm eager to see what the director brings to the small screen with Rush.

Rush premieres Thursday, July 17 at 9/8c on USA. USA also has their new drama Satisfaction lined up to debut on July 17, airing immediately after Rush. The series stars Matt Passmore and Stephanie Szostak as a married couple facing the question "What do you do when having it all is not enough?" Check out the new trailer for that one below:

But the summer season begins a bit sooner than that for the cable network, as Royal Pains returns June 10, Covert Affairs premieres June 24, and then there's Suits and Graceland, both of which return June 11.

Hollywood shortlists are a bit tricky to navigate. Studios do what they can to keep the goings-on behind their biggest productions very hush-hush – at least until the ink on the contracts has dried - but every so often a list emerges of actors and filmmakers that are being considered to play important franchise roles. Sometimes the information can be questionable, but at other times it can be an amazing way to look into the way an upcoming film is being made. This is as true for superhero movies as it is for any other genre, and this past week we saw the release of two very interesting shortlists.

The first to arrive on the radar was an update in Marvel Studios’ on-going search to find a filmmaker to take the helm of their upcoming Doctor Strange movie. While a few names have been cut out of contention since the hunt began, apparently the three main contenders at this point are Mark Andrews (co-director of Brave), Scott Derrickson (Sinister) and Jonathan Levine (Warm Bodies). All three names come from very different backgrounds and each could provide the comic book movie with a unique vision.

Equally interesting, however, is the casting search to find an actor to play Dr. Doom in Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four reboot that is scheduled to start filming in the next few months. With Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Bell attached to play the titular team, we already knew that the project was skewing younger with its casting, and the same appears to be true for the Dr. Doom hunt. Sam Riley (Control), Eddie Redmayne (Les Miserables), Toby Kebbell (Rocknrolla) and Domhnall Gleeson (About Time) are reportedly the top four (how fitting!) candidates for the important comic book villain role.

This week I’m sitting down with Roth Cornet, Entertainment Editor from IGN, to break down both of the races, analyze the candidates, and even pick our favorites. Who did we choose? Watch Hero Blend #8 to find out!

You can find more episodes of Hero Blend right here.

With the start of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase Three scheduled to launch next year, Marvel Studios is starting to put all of its ducks in a row - and a big part of that mission is finding somebody to direct the upcoming Doctor Strange. Last month a shortlist of four filmmakers being considered for the gig launched online, but now the race has been slightly altered, with two names apparently no longer in consideration and one new one added to the group.

A writer from The Hollywood Reporter took to his Twitter account this afternoon to announce some shakeups in the hunt of a Doctor Strange director, and according to his sources, the filmmakers still in contention for the job include Mark Andrews, best known for being a co-director on Pixar's Brave:

Jonathan Levine, a writer/director who has spent years impressing critics and audiences with movies like The Wackness, 50/50 and Warm Bodies:

And shortlist-newcomer Scott Derrickson, another young writer/director who first broke out in 2005 thriller The Exorcism of Emily Rose and earned a lot of attention for his 2012 horror story Sinister:

The names now missing from this list include Denmark's Nikolaj Arcel, best known for making 2012's A Royal Affair, and Dean Israelite, the up-and-coming director who recently helmed the low-budget sci-fi film Welcome To Yesterday for Paramount Pictures. All of that said, what you see above may not be exclusive. When the shortlist for the job was first revealed, Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige did his part to downplay the story and said that while the search is on for a Doctor Strange director, they are casting a wide net that isn't limited to just a couple of names. So while Andrews, Levine and Derrickson may be under consideration, they may not be the only ones.

Where things stand for Doctor Strange is a bit of a mystery right now. While it has been confirmed that the project will be a part of Phase Three - which kicks off with Edgar Wright's Ant-Man - the project doesn't yet have a release date, and therefore doesn't have a production schedule figured out. It's hard to say when any of this info will be revealed, but if I had to make a bet I would put a lot of money on San Diego Comic-Con.

It has been more than a full year since Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige promised comic book fans that Doctor Strange would be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase Three, but only now is the studio starting to make some major headway on the project. While Edgar Wright's Ant-Man is deep into the casting phase and getting ready to start production in a few months, The Hollywood Reporter has learned that executives from the studio has begun meeting with potential filmmakers to helm the movie.

According to the trade's sources, the four filmmakers currently being "vetted" for the job of Doctor Strange director are:

Mark Andrews

Much like Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird before him, Andrews may be the next filmmaker to move from Pixar to the world of live-action filmmaking. Andrews has been working in the industry since the mid-90s and first got serious attention as a director when he made the 2005 Pixar short One Man Band, but the biggest title on his record is the Academy Award-winning Brave, which he both co-wrote and co-directed.

Nikolaj Arcel

Hailing from Denmark, Arcel got a lot of attention for scripting the original Swedish adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but his biggest claim to fame is the 2012 film A Royal Affair, which he directed and co-wrote (and earned an Academy Award nomination for).

Dean Israelite

Unlike the other filmmakers listed here, Israelite doesn't have a long-established track record, but what he does have is a promising potential future. He is currently hard at work over at Paramount Pictures making Welcome To Yesterday, a low-budget time travel thriller with a cast of newcomers.

Jonathan Levine

This is personally my favorite choice in the bunch. While his debut film, All The Boys Love Mandy Lane, took nine years to go from its premiere to a theatrical release, the young filmmaker has used that time since to create some truly impressive features, including The Wackness, 50/50 and, most recently, the rom-zom-com Warm Bodies.

The studio has already hired the writing team Jon Aibel and Glenn Berger of Kung Fu Panda 2 fame to pen the script for Doctor Strange, but apparently the studio is on the look out for "a writer and a filmmaker to work in tandem" or a writer director a la Joss Whedon. As of now it's hard to say exactly where the project sits on the Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline, as the project doesn't have a release date yet (it could be the first Marvel film following Ant-Man in July 2015 or it could be the last movie before the inevitable The Avengers 3.

Provided its able to get off the ground, the Doctor Strange movie will be the first time that the character has appeared in a theatrical live-action feature since his creation by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1963. The character's classic origin story began with the future hero as a cocky, selfish surgeon who tragically damages his hands in a car accident. Traveling the world to try and find a way to fix his handicap, he ends up in Tibet where he winds up saving a man known as the Ancient One from one of his diciples, Baron Mordo. He winds up becoming a master of magic and uses his powers to stop the evil of the world.

Of the filmmakers above, who would you like to see get the chance to make a Doctor Strange movie? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

As long as I've worked at Cinema Blend-- actually, even longer than that-- Jonathan Levine's All The Boys Love Mandy Lane has been like a totem, a wisp of an idea of a film that a few people in the know would whisper about, largely as laments. To follow its sordid past requires encountering a company that no longer exists--Senator Entertainment--reading dozens of disappointed "It was going to happen, but now it's not" news stories, and going back to a time in which Levine was an upstart newcomer, not the director of bona fide hit Warm Bodies and critically beloved 50/50.

Mandy Lane premiered at the 2006-- 2006!!!-- Toronto Film Festival in the Midnight Madness Section, and went on to play at several other festivals and snag distribution from the Weinstein Company from their Dimension labels, a.k.a. the house that brought you the Scream franchise. It seemed like a perfect fit, until Grindhouse flopped, the Weinsteins balked and Senator Entertainment scooped up the rights…only to go bankrupt. The film sat in purgatory for years while Levine went on to a successful career and star Amber Heard grew up big time, and earlier this year the Weinstein Company announced that they had come back to rescue the film they had doomed to begin with, reacquiring the rights and scheduling a release for this year.

Lest you think this is just another bait and switch, the date has finally been set. Mandy Lane will premiere first on VOD on September 6-- the Weinstein Company has done well in that format through their Radius-TWC outfit-- and then finally arrive in theaters on October 11, a full seven years after its Toronto premiere. That was back during the George W. Bush administration. That was back before most of this year's upcoming second-graders were born. That was before we had ever seen a feature directed by Sarah Polley, Neill Blomkamp, Joseph Kosinski or Duncan Jones. That was a billion years ago.

So if you want to experience a blast from the past this fall, and catch up with a movie that people have been talking about for over a decade, the time for All The Boys Love Mandy Lane has finally come. Unless, of course, disaster strikes and it gets delayed again. I'm not saying it'll happen… but given the long road to getting here, we probably ought to be prepared for it anyway.

Horror movies, more than any other genre’s output, are notorious for sitting on production company shelves for a variety of reasons, not seeing proper releases until years after their production. Usually, a no-name actor will rise to some level of fame, and the film will get pulled out of limbo and shoved onto DVD trying to ride the coattails of that performer’s popularity. In the case of All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, however a one-two punch of bad circumstances sealed its temporary fate.

But now, seven years after its well-received debut at 2006’s Toronto Film Festival, the indie horror film All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is finally slashing its way into U.S. theaters for the first time. The Weinstein Company subsidiary Radius-TWC acquired the rights and plans a late summer release. The release comes soon after its director Jonathan Levine, for whom this was a first feature, released the surprise hit zom-rom-com Warm Bodies, which has made $89 million worldwide on a $35 million budget. Since Mandy Lane he's also made the affecting festival favorites The Wackness and 50/50.

Costing just $600,000, Mandy Lane 2006 TFF success immediately drew in The Weinstein Company, who dropped $3.5 million on the project only to suddenly drop it from their schedule. The film was picked up by Senator Entertainment US, a German company that also repeatedly pushed back the release before going bankrupt. Radiant-TWC’s Tom Quinn followed the film’s status since his years at Magnolia.

Levine was equally pleased, saying, “I am thrilled that Mandy Lane has been rescued and is back where it belongs with Harvey and Bob. Hard to believe it’s been seven years, but then again I’ve always perceived myself as a misunderstood artist who was light years ahead of his time, so I am thrilled the world has finally caught up. Seriously, I am incredibly proud of the film and of the hard work that my cast and collaborators put into it, and I am so happy the world will finally get a chance to see it.”

Mandy Lane tells the familiar tale of popular girl Mandy (Amber Heard) being invited to a remote ranch house for an end of the summer party, and then things go wrong and people get picked off one by one. Levine adds enough twists and turns to keep the material somewhat fresh, and his promise as a filmmaker is definitely present. The film also stars Anson Mount, Whitney Able, Michael Welch, Edwin Hodge, and Luke Grimes.

The Twilight saga is finally over. I know it seemed like it was never going to happen, but we made it through together, and the hordes who obsessed over sparkly Edward and hairy Jacob for years will have to move on to something else. Conventional wisdom says that next big thing will be Fifty Shades of Grey, the erotic and critically reviled novel currently on its way toward a film adaptation. But could the next Twilight be something good instead-- and already out in theaters?

On the surface Warm Bodies didn't look at all like the heir to Twilight. It's liked by critics, it's primarily a comedy, and it's from director Jonathan Levine, who has made beloved but little-seen movies like The Wackness and 50/50 that mostly appealed to male audiences. But Warm Bodies surprised a lot of people when it opened in theaters this weekend, making a hefty $20 million and topping the box office, which is always a challenge on Super Bowl weekend. As it turns out, the zom-rom-com didn't need to fight for those Super Bowl audiences at all-- it was driven by the power of teen girls.

According to The LA Times, 65% of the Warm Bodies audience was under 25, and 60% of them were female. They were also happy customers, giving the film a B+ CinemaScore. Given that Warm Bodies is a PG-13 romance, and one about a love between a human girl and an undead boy, the Twilight connection seems fairly obvious in retrospect. But Warm Bodies is wry and adventurous where Twilight is brooding and sincere, and reviews indicate it's appealing to a broad base of critics, many of whom probably hated Twilight. It's not all that rare for teen girls to latch on to the same thing that critics do-- The Hunger Games wasn't all that long ago, remember-- but Twilight was so massive it made it easy to believe it would never happen again.

Warm Bodies isn't necessarily the beginning of a new franchise or even that massive a hit, but it's a really encouraging sign for this post-Twilight era-- an indication of how all these endless supernatural romances might result in something actually good. It's also a wonderful victory for Levine, who made the fantastic 50/50 that went completely under seen, and Nicholas Hoult, who will be going full-on action hero in next month's Jack the Giant Slayer.This is one of those rare weekends where the critically beloved movie triumphs over the trashed one (in this case, Bullet to the Head). Enjoy this feeling while it lasts.

Making an adaptation of a book told in the first person is more than enough of a challenge, but as you can imagine that task is only made harder when the protagonist happens to be a zombie. Not only do you have to deal with widening perspective and creating a larger world, you also have to deal with the fact that from outward appearances the hero is a mumbling, stumbling, brainless bag of meat that spends every moment dreaming of devouring human flesh. This was the principal issue facing Jonathan Levine when he first came aboard to adapt Isaac Marion’s novel Warm Bodies - and an important element of the story I recently had the pleasure of discussing with the writer/director.

Set in a world overtaken by the living dead, the movie centers on R (Nicholas Hoult), a zombie leading a meaningless existence of boredom and hunger. But that all changes when he meets Julie (Teresa Palmer), a beautiful live human whose boyfriend R has devoured. But as R and Julie get closer they both discover that something is changing within him, and that something could change the entire world.

Check out my full interview with Levine below in which he talks about not only accessing the mind of a zombie, the challenge of the film’s shifting tones, the wonderful, eclectic soundtrack, and the rule established in the editing room: if it’s funny it goes into the movie.

Right from the off-set this movie is entering unprecedented territory by having a zombie as your main character, which obviously has some extreme and unique challenges to it. So where do you even begin?

Well, it’s interesting because it’s not as scary as you might think, because you read the book and you’re not like, “Wow, I can’t believe I’m so scared of this,” you’re like, “Oh, no one has done this before!” It’s so rare when you’re making a movie that you can be like, “Well, nobody has done this before!” I can’t think of things that nobody has thought of. So that’s exciting! Once you start from that place it’s actually more liberating than scary. But I think the bigger challenge is that in the book it’s all obviously internal monologue and it’s like translating that into a movie, so we had to get the voice-over – which we worked really long and hard on and I got a lot of help on – and it’s mostly in the screenwriting phase. Because once I cast Nick [Hoult] I was like, “Okay, that guy will take care of that. He’s awesome.” I just have to be there every once in a while to remind him of stuff, but he’s awesome. I don’t have to worry about that.

That’s the great thing about being a director. You have your list of things you have to worry about and things you don’t have to worry about. If you can hire someone or cast someone who equates to not having to worry about, it’s great! It’s like one of a thousand things you can check off [laughs]. You have so many things you have to worry about. But mostly it was in the screenwriting phase, getting that point of view down. In the book it’s so very deliberately in the zombie’s point of view, but in the movie you have to kind of break point of view a little bit. And you want to, because you want to get more of Teresa [Palmer]’s story, you want to get more texture of the world. So that was a challenge too: breaking point of view but still having the spirit of Nick’s point of view. And I think we were able to do that okay.

I actually wanted to ask you about the voice-over narration, because it is one of those things that’s really easy to screw up. There are so many films that just use it as a crutch for exposition or give up on it when it’s no longer useful – and one thing I loved about how you used it in your movie is that it’s always there, it never goes away. But was there ever a time when you tried to make it work without voice-over or was it there from draft one?

No, I always knew we kind of wanted it. Some people suggested we not have narration. Obviously this movie owes a great deal to Edward Scissorhands and that movie has no narration,. If you think about that movie having narration…it would have sucked with narration [laughs]. But to me it was always the idea that there’s the juxtaposition of what goes on in this guy’s head versus what you see, and voice-over is such an integral part of that. I think that finding the right placement of the voice-over and finding the right tone for the voice-over was really challenging. In the first draft the voice-over was very much lifted directly from the book, and Isaac [Marion] wrote this beautiful prose. But when you match it to the visuals we shot there was some kind of disconnect. So I learned that we had to take it in a slightly different direction in order to better capture the spirit of what Isaac wrote. And we also wanted to push it in a funnier and funnier direction because the biggest challenge of this movie is keeping it entertaining because there’s so much dead air – no pun intended [laughs].

So we wanted to push the voice-over in a more and more comedic direction while still maintaining the spirit of his book and also the social commentary of it. I just kept pushing it and I finally got these two guys who were around on 50/50, who worked with Seth [Rogen] and Evan [Goldberg], and we sat down, the three of us – they’re thanked in the “special thanks” – and we watched the movie. It was almost like Mystery Science Theater. And sometimes we got to the point where I was like, “Nah, we’re making fun of it. We can’t do that!” We watched the movie and we just started riffing on it and they were incredibly helpful at the very last minute to get the voice-over to where it needed to be. So it’s really cool and they were super helpful.

And just from a logic point of view the voice-over makes sense because you’re dealing with a character who doesn’t have the ability to string more than three words together. If you can’t connect to that lead character then the audience is just going to be lost.

To me his internal monologue was so important because one of the things that I was really attracted to with the movie was that this guy…that a young person could watch Nick’s character and be like, “Oh, that reminds me of myself the first time I was nervous around a girl.” And the only way to get that is to know what’s going on in his head. And I didn’t want to do Look Who’s Talking [laughs]. Sometimes it got a little into Look Who’s Talking, sometimes it got a little too Mystery Science Theater, so we had to be careful.

You mention the spirit of the book, and I’ll admit that I haven’t read it personally, but I’ve heard that, for example, R, Nick’s character, actually wears a suit in the novel. And he listens to more kind of classic standards…

He’s kind of like a 50s guy, and he drives an old Mercedes, he wears a suit…he’s like a Sinatra guy.

Where along the line did you decide to make those changes and why?

That was a hard decision. That was a decision I knew I might get a little flak for too. But to me, again, it was all about a young person today watching this movie and being like, “Oh my god, I could be turned into a zombie tomorrow and that’s going to be me.” I wanted to keep him an everyman for young people and I thought that would just resonate more. It’s a different decision than what’s written in the book, but I felt it was important. To me, as much as I can make that metaphor ring true, I’m going to keep trying to push for that metaphor.

As far as the music goes, it’s interesting. To me there was always this kind of John Hughes-ian kind of thing about this movie and the music was always functioning as a relic of a nostalgic time that happened before the world ended. And I wanted to be able to use as many colors of that emotional palette as possible, and not just use Frank Sinatra – which, by the way, would have been way too expensive [laughs]. I’m so proud of the soundtrack that we put together.

Well, all of your movies I’ve found have put a strong emphasis on music.

It’s really important. When I read the book I was like, “I’ll get to do this, this and this” and we hired this great music supervisor named Alexandra Patsavas, and the movie has everything from Bruce to Bon Iver. The soundtrack is super cool. I wish I could sell the soundtrack to people as a physical thing. I just remember buying soundtracks to movies, it was so much fun.

I’ve actually been listening to the Django Unchained soundtrack pretty much non-stop since I picked it up.

Dude, what’s the song on the Django Unchained soundtrack where they’re… I think it’s America? When they’re riding through the snow, or is it Lee Hazlewood?

Oh, are you talking about the Jim Croce song?

Is it Croce? I love Jim Croce and I turned to my girlfriend and I was like, “This is Jim Croce,” and she was like, “No, it’s America,” so now I’m going to fuckin’…[laughs] God, that soundtrack is so good.

But when you’re looking for the right song for a scene what is the process for you?

Well, it’s a couple things. One, we have this amazing music supervisor who just sends us ideas and we try them. Two, the editor tries a bunch of stuff. And three, I literally – and this is one of the things that’s most fun for me – I get my iTunes, I put up a Quicktime of the scene, I go home for the weekend, I have the editor give me a scene in Quicktime without the music in it, and I just go through my iTunes. And I have like 100 gigs. It’s a lot of music. And I don’t play every single song, but I just sit there with a glass of wine and just chill. And it’s incredibly relaxing and fun. Honestly, that’s one of the things that attracted me to music in the first place, the combination of music and image. And so that’s basically the process. Every song on the soundtrack came from a different place. Some came from me, some came from Alex, some came from Nancy [Richardson], the editor, and it just combined into this really nice kind of diverse, eclectic mix.

When you’re on the hunt for the right music are you more listening to sound or do lyrics enter the picture as well?

I don’t look at lyrics so much. Other people have to remind me to look at lyrics.

I love that you have “Hungry Heart” by Springsteen in there. It’s just perfect in there.

[laughs] It’s funny, “Hungry Heart” works because of the lyrics, but I always look at rhythm and feel. I don’t really pay much attention to the lyrics, unless the lyrics are just totally out there or totally undermine what we’re trying to do. For so long the first scene in the movie where they go hunting was "No Church in the Wild" by Jay-Z and Kanye, and it got really played out over the course of the time that we were editing and also it just became ridiculously expensive, but it was like the perfect song for that scene. So it drove me crazy to have to not use it. But lyrics…”Hungry Heart” works because it’s obviously so good, but I was telling these guys downstairs, I’ve basically followed Bruce around the country…

I’m a Jersey boy. I totally get it [laughs].

[laughs] So I was so happy to be able to use “Hungry Heart.” And it wasn’t as crazy expensive as Patience… definitely not as expensive as Sinatra. [Bob] Dylan is cheap! Everyone out there should know, if you’re making an independent movie or something like that, Bob Dylan is very friendly to filmmakers and you should think about Bob Dylan songs in your movies. That’s my public service announcement [laughs].

I do also have to ask about tone, especially because you made this movie coming off of 50/50, which is another film with a lot of wide spread tones and emotions, and this movie is very much the same way, blending comedy and romance and action and horror. When it came to balancing it, were you able to reflect back on your previous work for guidance?

Yeah, 50/50 helped a lot, and working with Seth and Evan worked a lot. They were incredibly influential in teaching me about that stuff. What I learned from them is that if you can get a joke that’s not going to mess up anything – it’s not going to take people out of it or whatever – you better get that joke. Because at the end of the day we’re here to entertain people, and especially when you’re screening a movie and there’s a time when people don’t laugh, you’re like, “I want to hear people laugh.” That’s one of the few things you can hear – maybe in a horror movie you can hear people scream – but we don’t want to scare people that much. And so hearing people laugh becomes addictive. And throughout every cut…we always had funny versions of every take and we just kept adding more and more and more of them, we kept adding more funny voice-over, and then at the end of the day I think we had 20% more comedy than we originally had. And it’s because we’re addicted to hearing the audience laugh, and I think in that way the audience wants to laugh. So as long as you’re not screwing up the rest of the movie, as long as you’re not winking and breaking character and doing all that stuff, then I think it’s cool to just go for laughs all the time. We did that for 50/50 and I really liked it. That’s a great lesson that I owe.

I actually talked with Rob Corddry earlier today and he was telling me that he asked you to cut the “Bitches, man” line, but that’s one of the funniest lines in the movie!

That was a very controversial line. I don’t know that Corddry has seen it with an audience because he’ll definitely backtrack on that statement.

I told him that I saw it last night and that the audience roared.

It kills, man! But it’s funny. My editor was like… it wasn’t in the original cut, and my editor was like, “I have this take where Corddry says, ‘Bitches, man’” and I was like, “Oh yeah! I remember that! Let’s try it!” And it was the biggest laugh in the movie. That was one of those things where that trumps everything. If you get a laugh that big I don’t care what it is. Just put it in the movie! So I think when I first sit down and watch it with Rob in a room full of people he’ll understand why it’s in there [laughs].

Nicholas Hoult is no stranger to heavy makeup. While he looked fairly normal at the start of last summer's X-Men: First Class, by the end of the movie he was blue, had an animal-like face, and was furry all over. In Jonathan Levine's Warm Bodies he will once again be undergoing a physical transformation, but instead of looking like a fuzzy beast, this time he's going full-on zombie.

Collider has gotten their hands on a leaked still from the upcoming zombie romance movie, and you can check it out below. Head over to the source to see it in high-res.

They did a pretty good job here. The skin, eyes and lips look great and the wardrobe is just the right level of disheveled (Hoult also has a great vacant stare going for him). Given that the character doesn't ever really talk - it's more just grunts and syllables - it's probably going to be a challenging performance and we'll have to wait and see if Hoult is up to task.

Based on the book by Isaac Marion, Warm Bodies tells the story of a zombie named R who falls in love with the love of a teenage boy he has killed. The story apparently has connections to William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, which it's not hard to imagine when you think about zombies and humans getting together. In addition to Nicholas Hoult, the film also stars Teresa Palmer, Rob Corddry, John Malkovich, and Dave Franco. Look for the film when it arrives on August 10, 2012.

If you’re not already excited to see Jonathan Levine’s 50/50, you need to remedy that problem right now. Though the film won’t be released until September 30th, I was invited to go to a very early screening back in April and I was absolutely floored by it. Everything about it, from its blend of drama and humor to the performances by the entire cast, is stunning and last week I was given the chance to talk with the filmmaker on the phone about the upcoming release.

In the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, a young man living a happy life when a routine exam reveals that he has a rare form of cancer. Given only a 50% chance of survival, he has to tell his girlfriend, friends and family about his condition and finds his life completely change as a result.

Check out my interview with Jonathan Levine below in which he talks about sticking to the true story, getting Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a replacement for James McAvoy, and the project’s numerous title changes.

To start, it’s been established that this movie is based on a true story, and obviously elements of the story have been fictionalized a little bit, so I’m curious, when you were putting this together, at what point do you not want to strike too far from the truth? Especially with Will serving as the screenwriter and producer.

I think it’s sort of twofold. My last movie, to me, was very personal, so I feel like I have learned some of the benefits of telling a personal story and some of the pitfalls. To be honest, I think whenever it’s too personal, whenever you’re like, “No, no, no. Really she was wearing a red shirt,” or, “He was drinking a coke, not diet coke,” whenever you’re so detail-oriented about it, it kind of just, you can kind of get a little lost. I think the best thing to be cognizant of when you’re doing something like this is being true to the spirit of the truth, which, when you’re telling a story, is actually a lot more important than the actual truth. In fact, the actual truth, the things that actually happened in life, we found we often either, no one would believe it, it was almost too broad. The actual things that happened were almost too... and then other things were just too boring. So it is really, really important and I think Will did a great job of striking that balance between finding the spirit of the story you want to tell while not adhering so closely to the exact beat by beat outline of what happened. I think that extends all the way down the line. Joe from day one made it clear that he was not doing any sort of impression of Will, he was making his own character. It’s interesting sometimes, I think the truth can be very useful when you need it and I think it’s also a very important skill to learn when to throw it out. That said, nobody, the other thing that’s important too is to be very, very true to any kind of details of what it’s like to go through this and not shy away and be very kind of accurate with the medical side of things, all of that. That was very important too.

Just to bridge off of that, the element that I really love about this film, and by the way I really do love it. Throughout the entire thing, nothing about it feels forced or phony, the structure is completely invisible. It doesn’t feel like you’re watching a movie, you’re actually watching this guy Adam go through this experience. Was that really, as you were making this film, your intention? Was that your ultimate goal, would you say?

Yeah. It’s very important to me to be grounded in real. It was very important to me to have the filmmaking be invisible and not to ever feel like people were pushing you in any direction, like the filmmakers were manipulating the audience in any way. I thought Will wrote a fantastic script that was engaging and so true in a way that a lot of movies aren’t. I felt that my job was to kind of convey that in as truthful and non-manipulative a way possible. What you’re responding to is both the script and I think it’s also the performances. It’s very much a performance thing with these guys. All of these incredible actors really are the ones that take you on this journey. I think it’s, I think it was important to me to not let the filmmaking get in the way of that, just to let it unfold.

To that same point, how much easier does it make it to have Seth Rogen basically playing himself in the film?

Well it’s interesting, I am a, yes. I think Seth kind of gets a bad rep as an actor, I think he’s actually an incredible actor. I think in Funny People he’s fantastic. In this movie he is kind of playing a version of himself, but that doesn’t make it any less remarkable that he can come up with the most ridiculously funny stuff five straight takes, five different times, and it doesn’t make it easier having him play himself. What makes it easier is the fact that he’s really fucking funny and you can relax. As a director, I never have to be like, oh my god, is it working? Because I know it’s working because I’m sitting at the monitor laughing my ass off. It does take, in a movie that does have a high degree of difficulty for all the people involved, it does take a lot of pressure off. Everything in it, he just puts it on his back and tries it. And Joe, to his credit, reacts as any friend in real life would. He’s reacting. He’s not driving the scene, and he’s comfortable not driving the scene. I think his character wouldn’t be driving the scene until we reach the third act where he actually does learn to take control.

You mention that the film had a high degree of difficulty, why would you say that?

I think it’s really hard any time you’re trying to do something a little unique in film. I think it’s really, really hard to get that right. Tonally it’s really hard, it’s hard for the actors, all of whom are playing flawed people. I think all of us, we all had a lot of confidence in this movie because we could look around and see the people involved and be very confident that we were in good hands, we could lean on each other.

Going off that idea, obviously there’s always going to be pressure on a movie set, but when you have the guy who actually went though it serving as executive producer and writer, you have both Evan and Seth serving as producers, does that increase the pressure because you feel like you’d let them down if it doesn’t turn out as you hoped?

Not really. They’re pretty cool. We all get along really well, we were friends. That happened very quickly. We really clicked very quickly. Seth and Evan create the most collaborative environment possible. Part of creating a collaborative environment is not to work from a place of fear. You’re always, as a director, you’re always working from, the biggest motivator is, “What if I fuck this up?” that’s always the biggest motivator. But that said, in your day-to-day decisions, it’s much easier to kind of be liberated from that, and no, there was no one ever, everyone kind of had the attitude, and I think it’s the attitude Evan must have learned from all of his work with Apatow of, “We are going to do everything we can to make this the best possible. It’s all of our responsibilities.” Will was on the set every day, and he was on the set everyday not just to be a resource but to continue to treat things as things were evolving, because that’s kind of the way those guys process works. I adopted it and really loved it.

How much did the script and the story change since the first draft of the final cut?

From the first draft of the final cut was probably a lot. From the draft that I started with, which was about six months before we started shooting, maybe less, I’d say some dialogue changed and some of the arcs changed a little bit, but the vast majority of it is intact. It’s very funny, there’ll be a scene with Joe and Seth in a coffee shop and they’ll be talking about getting laid, but it will be a totally different run of jokes. And Seth will do something else, and he will change the scene entirely, but the intention is still the same and the structure is still the same, but the scene has just kind of taken on a new life from being changed in the moment. I think that also contributes to the naturalism of the performances.

On that note, I was wondering if you could talk a bit about your pacing when it comes to being a director. How fast do you like to work? When you’re shooting, do you like a lot of coverage? Do you try to get multiple takes on dialogue? Do you let the actors improvise a lot? Could you just talk about your style a bit?

Yeah. Everyone always had the opportunity to improvise a little bit. Everyone knew that they could do essentially whatever they wanted within the world of the scene. There were definitely, I would get at least half of he scenes, no one did that. That’s essentially because Will wrote them perfectly. The other half, not that Will didn’t write them perfectly, there was just room for variation, room for improvisation on the day. It was important for me to create an environment where everyone feels free, once they’ve learned their character, once they’ve been cast, everyone feels free to kind of do their own thing. I think it really contributes to a creatively vibrant set. So we would probably do the first take as is, and then beyond that, we would do whatever kind of direction the actors took it. In between takes, I would either say, “It wasn’t that funny,” or, “Wow, that was awesome, pursue this” or, “Hey, remember that thing we did in rehearsal, try that.” Whenever you’re doing that kind of improvisation, you have to cover it, you have to cover the shit out of it, you just do. You have no choice. So it’s not always the most aesthetically fulling way to shoot something, but again, it’s actor-driven kind of thing, and that’s the best way to get the performances. So that’s what we did. As far as my style, I think I try to be pretty fast just because that’s the world I came from. You don’t always have that much time and you don’t always have that many days. You definitely never have enough money. But you know, when you’re doing stuff like that, it actually does go pretty fast because it’s just two people talking, there’s no explosions or anything. It’s cool.

I do want to also talk about Joeseph Gordon-Levitt a little bit because his performance is actually astonishing. I guess, just for starters, I know that originally James McAvoy was attached to play Adam but had to drop out, so from the get go, what was the process of getting Gordon-Levitt to star?

Well we were, it was, James unfortunately had to leave because of family obligations, a family emergency. So essentially, we needed someone quickly. It’s not a big budget movie, you can’t really afford to have everyone sitting around waiting for someone. So we all loved the idea of Joe, we all loved him as an actor, so we got it to him. He liked it, luckily, he came up to my office where Seth and I were hanging out and we gave him the hard shell, which was convincing him we were cool people. He had already responded to the script, and then he just jumped right in. It wasn’t more than a couple of weeks later that we were shooting. So the really, really remarkable thing about it is to me, just how much he was able to do in that time. And how incredibly attuned he was to the character. I just thought it was amazing what he was able to do with that little prep time. Of course, we started rehearsing right away. We got him into Cancer Survivors in Vancouver, who were gracious enough to talk to him about their experience. But yeah, to be able to come in and so quickly deliver a performance like that, which is a performance that you would think someone has been preparing a lifetime for, is incredible.

I’m also curious about the title, because 50/50, it was originally called I’m With Cancer and Live With It, why were there so many title changes? Obviously 50/50 relates to the percentage, his chances, but how did you settle on the original title and why so many changes?

Well I’m With Cancer was the title Will wrote that was on the first page of the script. So we immediately, that’s the way that you think of the movie, with that title. I think it was a clever title but I hated it because I don’t think anyone would ever see a movie called that. Part of the reason we’re making it is for as many people to see as possible, and we’re really proud of it, and I think it would be a shame if something as silly as a title were to keep people away. That was the first thing. It cannot turn people off, the title. So then you’re kind of in a world of stuff that’s a little more generic, a lot easier to kind of evaluate negatively, but at the same time, you’re in a world of things that could be Nancy Myers movies or they could be our movie. It’s just the nature of the beast, it’s definitely a trade I’m willing to make, and I think within that world, I think 50/50 is at least kind of, both clever and kind of stable and at least feels cool to me. Some of the other stuff we were dealing with did not feel that way. So I’m happy with it, but it was, the reason for changing the title so much is because we wanted a title that drew people in and did not push people away, and with a movie like this, we’ve already established that it’s really hard, you want the title to be appealing because you want people to know that it’s going to be a positive, uplifting experience, just because you want people to see it.

I guess also, from an advertising angle, I’m also curious just because there was also a time where this was kind of known as the “Untitled Cancer Movie” and the movie does definitely handle tone, just in terms of balancing the drama and the comedy, so I’m curious, when you’re selling this, do you feel like you’re selling it as a comedy, do you feel like you’re selling it as a drama? How do you present the film, would you say?

How do I present the film? To me the movie, to me, both comedy and drama don’t really do it justice, or not do it justice. I mean to me, to call it a comedy, you’re going to be surprised by the dramatic stuff. If you call it a drama, you’re going to be shocked at how funny it is. To me the movie is funnier than a lot of the comedies I saw this summer that were supposed to be comedies. So it’s, but I do think calling it a comedy is a little bit of a misnomer because it does go to such a substantive place. For me, I don’t think of it is either/or, I think of it as, kind of I think about the movies that we tried to follow in the footsteps of. The Hal Ashby movies, the James Brooks movies, the Cameron Crowe movies, all of which I think just have that balance of tone that kind of captures what life is like. So I wish there were a name for a genre like that. Unfortunately there’s so few movies that do that. They’ve called it dramedy, but I think it’s that’s like Doogie Howser or something like that, or Ally McBeal. I think those are.

I do want to ask you about your upcoming, you have another upcoming project in addition to Warm Bodies in which you’re working with Will, Seth, and Evan again, called Jamaica. I’m curious, obviously you’re doing Warm Bodies first, but where are things in development for that project?

Will is just starting to write it and I’m hoping that as soon as we finish Warm Bodies that we’ll get to go to Jamaica and immerse ourselves in a very intensive research situation there. And maybe get a house and just stay there for a couple of years. No, you know, he’s, it’s a story based on a very funny personal experience of Will’s, and it’s a story that, I’ve long been fascinated with Jamaica, and I think it’s one of the greatest places I’ve ever been. I’ve been there a few times now and I look forward to going back. Hopefully it’s another kind of thing that has that tone of comedy and drama and substance. But I think it’s going to be really, really fun. I don’t know how I’m going to survive Jamaica with those guys.

You mention that it’s a kind of, I know the story is about his experience with his grandma. Can you talk about the plot in any more detail than that?

I don’t know man for some reason, I don’t think it’s like, no, I don’t see any reason to keep it a secret. For some reason all the press releases haven’t told the plot so I feel like I’m not supposed to tell the plot. It’s not like, you know, it’s not like DaVinci Code, it’s just a movie. I guess for some reason I’m not supposed to talk about it. I don’t know why. Maybe I am. But it’s just I haven’t seen it online so I’d feel like a douche if I was the first person to talk about it. But I will talk about it. Are you going to talk to Will?

Maybe, I don’t know, maybe closer to the release date. Hopefully. I hope to.

I just don’t know, you never know what you’re supposed to say. Like what you’re going to get in trouble for. I’ll tell you anything else.

Alright, it did mention that it’s very funny but there’s the dramatic tones. In terms of...

It’s a trip Will took with his grandmother to Jamaica and his grandmother was at the time, suffering from Alzheimer’s. So there was, I think there were probably a lot of kind of really sad things and a lot of really amusing things too. It’s a coming-of-age story I think.

Well just to bring it back to 50/50 for a final question, I am curious, how personal is this story to you?

All I can say is I’ve dealt with cancer in my family. I think when you make a movie like this, you learn that it’s like this secret society, until you know about it you don’t know about it, but then once you do, you recognize that the whole world is impacted by it. It’s actually deeply personal to me. It’s actually deeply personal to me, and I think that the fact that it is personal to me made me feel a great deal of responsibility even as we were telling our dick jokes, to be respectful and true to the spirit of something that so many people have suffered from.

Director Jonathan Levine got his start in genre movies, with the acclaimed but still-unreleased horror movie All The Boys Love Mandy Lane -- yes, the movie we were wondering about in 2008 still hasn't seen the light of day. But since that movie remains under the radar Levine has found far more success in dramedy, with the coming-of-age story The Wackness and this fall's 50/50, which is already earning spectacular buzz and is one of our most anticipated upcoming movies. With that movie finished, though, Levine is moving on to his next project-- and wouldn't you know it, he's ready to tackle genre again.

Levine is putting together the cast for his next movie, Warm Bodies, an adaptation of isaac Marion's book about a romance between a zombie and a still human girl. Nicholas Hoult is set to play the zombie with a heart, with Teresa Palmer as the object of his affection, and now Variety reports that Children's Hospital star Rob Corddry will play another zombie, who like Hoult's character "is different from the rest of the undead." Production on the movie starts in September, which as it turns out, is when 50/50 will be playing the Toronto FIlm Festival and opening wide in theaters at the end of the month. Everything's coming up Jonathan Levine!

If you don't already know the name Nicholas Hoult it won't be long until you do. After starring on the hit UK show Skins, the actor caught many people's attention with his role in Tom Ford's A Single Man in 2009. Since then he's been cast in the role of Hank McCoy/Beast in X-Men: First Class and, most recently, landed the coveted title role in Bryan Singer's Jack The Giant Killer. He's certainly not done yet, though, as he's just been cast in another role.

A press release has been sent out announcing that Nicholas Hoult will now star in Warm Bodies, a film adaptation of the book by Isaac Marion. In the movie the actor will play R, a "existentially tormented zombie" who befriends the girlfriend of one of his victims. The relationship then begins to change the character and leads to a chain reaction that could affect the entire zombie world. Jonathan Levine, director of The Wackness, will write and direct the film.

Between this and the in-development Breathers: A Zombie's Lament, it would seem that the reanimated corpses falling in love is the new "it" thing for 2011. God forbid we ever get a version of Twilight with zombies.

The drama known in previous incarnations as I'm With Cancer and Live With It, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a young man coping with the illness and Seth Rogen as his best friend, has been retitled 50/50, and set for a September 30 release date according to The Wrap. It's the next film from The Wackness and All The Boys Love Mandy Lane director Jonathan Levine, and also stars Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard (both of them veterans of Summit's cash-cow Twilight franchise) and Anjelica Huston.

It was hard to predict a release strategy for the film, given that it's a drama with comedic overtones-- always hard to market-- and stars Rogen and Gordon-Levitt, both of them successful in various ensemble films but not necessarily up to the task of carrying movies on their own. The Green Hornet's remarkable $200 million worldwide gross probably gave the studio a lot more faith in Rogen, and Gordon-Levitt's got both the Inception bragging rights and that forthcoming mysterious role in The Dark Knight Rises. September 30 seems like a great spot for the film, early enough in the fall season to escape awards chatter, but beyond the dead zone of late August and early September. Given that Rogen's a hometown boy, it wouldn't surprise me to see 50/50 show up at the Toronto International Film Festival earlier that month.

Anna Kendrick is on a friggin' roll right now after her sure-to-be-Oscar-nominated performance in Up in the Air, so it was only a matter of time before she snagged some sweet new job to capitalize on her newfound success. Turns out that job will be with fellow bright young thing James McAvoy and, uh, The Wackness director Jonathan Levine?

There's a strange collection of names now attached to the project formerly known as I'm With Cancer, in which McAvoy plays a twenty-something diagnosed with cancer and learning how to live with it. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (who also wrote Superbad and Pineapple Express together) will be producing the film, in which Kendrick will play a young psychologist trying to help McAvoy's character while learning how to do her job herself.

The role sounds perfect for Kendrick, who's got the "confused young go-getter" thing perfected. I'm both surprised and delighted to see Levine on board, since The Wackness was a small pleasure but largely underappreciated, and his actual debut feature All The Boys Love Mandy Lane hasn't managed to get a release at all. Even weirder, Levine is replacing indie auteur Nicole Holofcener, who seems like a truly bizarre choice. Given that he's such an un-obvious choice, it seems likely he had a particularly great vision for the film, or at the very least offered a lot of potential for very cheap. It's hard to know what to make of this movie, but it seems likely it'll be worth seeing regardless.