Eva Green Talks "Casino Royale" Sequel

There's some spoiler material below, so only click on through if you want some information on a character / plot thread that may (or may not) appear in the "Casino Royale" follow-up. Mega-sexy actress Eva Green is the one spilling secrets this time out.

From EW and Dark Horizons: "Out doing the promotional rounds for "Casino Royale", actress Eva Green revealed to Entertainment Weekly a few secrets about the upcoming sequel to "Casino Royale" in November 2008.

Be warned there are SPOILERS AHEAD for the ending of "Royale", so for those who haven't seen it I suggest looking away.

"They're going to do a second [movie] where you'll understand what's going on in her mind. It was really hard, and Barbara Broccoli helped me understand. You would think, wait a minute, she had an Algerian boyfriend, and she's been sent on this mission, and then she begins to feel guilty. She's in love with Bond. It's a deep love. The Algerian boyfriend was something light, an affair. So there's an internal conflict" she says."

Comments

kenny356

Kenneth Roos

[b]an actual direct sequel?[/b]
Why change the bond format so much for this one movie, I admit I liked it, but there were alot of boring parts, and the villian Le Chiffre was pretty lame. But why do we need a sequel, we now have williard white, so let's get spectre back and make a bunch of new bond films.

Nov 21 - 06:40 AM

bwozar

Bernard Ozarowski

I loved Royale and I'm psyched for the sequel. I think it's a really nice change to directly link the movies consistently now (On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds are Forever not withstanding especially considering Connery's half-assed scenery chewing performance in Diamonds that basically destroyed the emotional investment in Diana Rigg's death at the end of OHMSS). Craig is a hell of a good Bond (maybe the best when all is said and done) and Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli seem truly invested in bringing Bond back to the glory days (Dr. No through Thunderball IMHO).

Le Chiffre was a solid villain especially when you consider him as a just a middle man for what's to come. Eva Green was a top flight Bond girl (I never realized just how beautiful she was before this movie!) and Dench finally seemed to grow into the role of M (especially after her miserable turn in The World is not Enough). I also liked the intro sequence a lot in this one, both the credits and Bond's initiation to 00-status (even if Chris Cornell's song was only meh). Frankly I think there was more legitimate emotion and character development and explanation in four words, *SPOILER*, "The Bitch is Dead", then in most of the Bond movies combined. I can't wait for November 7th, 2008.

Nov 21 - 07:49 AM

bookwormy

Darcy McCusker

[b]How is a sequel possible?[/b]
Wouldn't it be a prequel? Because
SPOILER: She dies at the end : SPOILER
Besides, while Eva Green was great, I didn't find the character to be that interesting.
Or is it going to be through flashbacks? I don't like that idea. Flashbacks are tough in the best of circumstances; I have serious doubts they can pull them off in a Bond movie.

Nov 21 - 08:01 AM

bwozar

Bernard Ozarowski

Supposedly Green won't be back in the sequel in any sort of relevant role but only in a recorded video message or two that Bond discovers. The link is *SPOILER* the Algerian boyfriend as was mentioned in the article. There's no reason to believe there are going to be flashbacks so far as I know.

Nov 21 - 09:32 AM

Zen Bullet

J D

Eva Green was the best part of Casino Royale. She created a sympathetic, complex, and witty Bond girl . . . not the typical bimbo-doll or femme fatale we're used to from the series.

That being said, I don't share the sentiment around here that Casino Royale was a good film. A while back the producers acknowledged that they were following the "Jason Bourne" model(after that series' tremendous success) . . . and such cynicism is evident in the reworked Bond. Daniel Craig's performance could easily have been applied to Bourne(he might very well have been better than Damon).

James Bond is like Mickey Mouse or Indiana Jones: an icon . . . but to give him a "soul", to make him rough around the edges, to give him a growth arc . . . is a real miscalculation. The attempt to infuse a soul into Bond actually robs him of his iconic character. Most times you WANT to bring depth to a hero . . . but doing so in this case actually sucks him dry.

The pacing of the film suffered for one primary reason: scenes would repeatedly unfold, to be explained only afterwards. The problem with putting the scene before its explanation is that the audience is emotionally and intellectually disconnected from what they're watching . . . and when the explanation for the scene(or the design behind it) is finally revealed, the scene is already over. The audience's disconnect generates long periods of weariness.

A notable exception was the card-playing sequence, which came armed with an explanation of the stakes early on . . . and worked very nicely as a result.

An audience is pulled through the twists and turns of a thriller(or any genre) armed with a STORY QUESTION(such as: will so-and-so accomplish such-and-such task successfully before the ticking clock runs out?). But if we're not privy to the exact design of the task . . . or what is at stake, we, the audience can't feel tension and anxiety about the scene's payoff. This nearly cripples the new Bond.

Anyway, those were a couple of the more pronounced problems I spotted. I still think Goldfinger is the best model for what a Bond film needs to be.

I completely support an attempt at a SMARTER Bond reworking(in this area, Casino Royale was a significant improvement over the last few pathetic entries). But I just don't feel inspired by the notion of a sequel that follows the current lines.

Nov 21 - 08:16 AM

bwozar

Bernard Ozarowski

Based on your critiques, especially this:
"The pacing of the film suffered for one primary reason: scenes would repeatedly unfold, to be explained only afterwards. The problem with putting the scene before its explanation is that the audience is emotionally and intellectually disconnected from what they're watching . . . and when the explanation for the scene(or the design behind it) is finally revealed, the scene is already over. The audience's disconnect generates long periods of weariness."
I'm guessing you hated The Prestige? Not gonna lie I didn't like it either. But this is a narrative style used in a number of movies; however, I didn't feel like there was any sort of problem understanding any of the movie within the scope of the narrative itself.

Regardless I think bringing Bond back from being a superhero to an actual character was the best move possible. I recommend reading some of Fleming's novels, the book Bond is a far darker and deeper character than we've seen in the previous 20 Bond movies and I'm happy to see one of the movies truly pursue Fleming's vision. Additionally Fleming's novels were interconnected (some with cliffhanger endings) with real links and consequences between the stories, I'm very happy to see the movies following the same path. It will, I believe, be more effective storytelling than the normal Bond vs. Maniacal Supervillain #14 story that we've seen basically since Diamonds are Forever.

Nov 21 - 09:39 AM

Zen Bullet

J D

Actually I loved The Prestige. it's my favorite film this year. The Prestige worked in much the same way that The Shawshank Redemption, The Usual suspects or The Sixth Sense did: by allowing the audience to know the motives behind actions and characters. . . even if the motives ultimately proved somewhat false or misleading. Actually, The Prestige was a straight-ahead revenge tale . . . and the plot reversal at the end never really changed that core foundation.

I've read many of Fleming's novels, and it's true that he took a less flamboyant approach with the character. It's been a while, so I can't speak with certainty about how closely Casino Royale follows its source. But when compared to the earlier Bond played by Connery, the new Bond seems more generic. He's sympathetic, certainly, and his performance is wonderful, but never once was I pursuaded that I was watching James Bond on the screen.

Nov 21 - 10:10 AM

Vitamin M

Matthew Haynes

That's because he wasn't the Bond we know until the end of the film, when the music kicks in, that's where he really became 007. So you didn't feel like you were watching Bond because you weren't. Much like you didn't see Batman until halfway through Batman Begins.
Why am I writing on such an old comment board....oh because your comments were unintelligent.

Jan 30 - 11:21 AM

bwozar

Bernard Ozarowski

Supposedly Green won't be back in the sequel in any sort of relevant role but only in a recorded video message or two that Bond discovers. The link is *SPOILER* the Algerian boyfriend as was mentioned in the article. There's no reason to believe there are going to be flashbacks so far as I know.

Nov 21 - 09:32 AM

bwozar

Bernard Ozarowski

Based on your critiques, especially this:
"The pacing of the film suffered for one primary reason: scenes would repeatedly unfold, to be explained only afterwards. The problem with putting the scene before its explanation is that the audience is emotionally and intellectually disconnected from what they're watching . . . and when the explanation for the scene(or the design behind it) is finally revealed, the scene is already over. The audience's disconnect generates long periods of weariness."
I'm guessing you hated The Prestige? Not gonna lie I didn't like it either. But this is a narrative style used in a number of movies; however, I didn't feel like there was any sort of problem understanding any of the movie within the scope of the narrative itself.

Regardless I think bringing Bond back from being a superhero to an actual character was the best move possible. I recommend reading some of Fleming's novels, the book Bond is a far darker and deeper character than we've seen in the previous 20 Bond movies and I'm happy to see one of the movies truly pursue Fleming's vision. Additionally Fleming's novels were interconnected (some with cliffhanger endings) with real links and consequences between the stories, I'm very happy to see the movies following the same path. It will, I believe, be more effective storytelling than the normal Bond vs. Maniacal Supervillain #14 story that we've seen basically since Diamonds are Forever.

Nov 21 - 09:39 AM

Zen Bullet

J D

Actually I loved The Prestige. it's my favorite film this year. The Prestige worked in much the same way that The Shawshank Redemption, The Usual suspects or The Sixth Sense did: by allowing the audience to know the motives behind actions and characters. . . even if the motives ultimately proved somewhat false or misleading. Actually, The Prestige was a straight-ahead revenge tale . . . and the plot reversal at the end never really changed that core foundation.

I've read many of Fleming's novels, and it's true that he took a less flamboyant approach with the character. It's been a while, so I can't speak with certainty about how closely Casino Royale follows its source. But when compared to the earlier Bond played by Connery, the new Bond seems more generic. He's sympathetic, certainly, and his performance is wonderful, but never once was I pursuaded that I was watching James Bond on the screen.

Nov 21 - 10:10 AM

Vitamin M

Matthew Haynes

That's because he wasn't the Bond we know until the end of the film, when the music kicks in, that's where he really became 007. So you didn't feel like you were watching Bond because you weren't. Much like you didn't see Batman until halfway through Batman Begins.
Why am I writing on such an old comment board....oh because your comments were unintelligent.

Jan 30 - 11:21 AM

Ciaranmv

Ciaran Vejby

More Eva Green in Royale 2? Bring it on!

Nov 21 - 09:46 AM

Zen Bullet

J D

Actually I loved The Prestige. it's my favorite film this year. The Prestige worked in much the same way that The Shawshank Redemption, The Usual suspects or The Sixth Sense did: by allowing the audience to know the motives behind actions and characters. . . even if the motives ultimately proved somewhat false or misleading. Actually, The Prestige was a straight-ahead revenge tale . . . and the plot reversal at the end never really changed that core foundation.

I've read many of Fleming's novels, and it's true that he took a less flamboyant approach with the character. It's been a while, so I can't speak with certainty about how closely Casino Royale follows its source. But when compared to the earlier Bond played by Connery, the new Bond seems more generic. He's sympathetic, certainly, and his performance is wonderful, but never once was I pursuaded that I was watching James Bond on the screen.

Nov 21 - 10:10 AM

Vitamin M

Matthew Haynes

That's because he wasn't the Bond we know until the end of the film, when the music kicks in, that's where he really became 007. So you didn't feel like you were watching Bond because you weren't. Much like you didn't see Batman until halfway through Batman Begins.
Why am I writing on such an old comment board....oh because your comments were unintelligent.

Jan 30 - 11:21 AM

lrm8

john smith

i know this is a bond thread, but after seeing casino royale i think daniel craig would be an excellent harvey dent/two face

Nov 21 - 06:09 PM

Reeven

Jud Widing

I'm all for if it gets anywhere near the levels of awesome Casino Royale did.

Nov 21 - 06:32 PM

fizzypulp

Katie Teasdale

Due to royale being the first novel they had to give Bond a soul as its was put to explain his actions in future films/missions.
And Chifre was not the real villian in the end which was good that he was fairly weak as it highlighted the fact that there is always someone worse round the corner.
I think this is one of the best Bond films ever - i was on the edge of my seat and never once looked at my watch (which i do have a habit of doing).
Craig was absolutely superb...making Bond realistic and gritty. The suave ultra cool later bonds just dont ring true to me. In the later Bond films im rooting for the villians rather than Bond!
I'd defiately be up for a sequel/prequel whatever as long as they keep the style this one was done in.
Oh and i love the opening credits and song!!!

Nov 22 - 12:52 AM

puablo

Josh Jones

The first handful of Sean Connery Bond films reference the previous ones, largely minor things like "that time in Jamaica" and references to Dr. No, etc. Really all they could do that is sequel-ish here is to continue the Bond story with references to the previous one, with an all new mission.

Nov 22 - 05:52 AM

PeteHogan

Matthew Yeager

"really all they could do that is sequel-ish here is to continue the Bond story with references to the previous one, with an all new mission."

not true. Le Chiffre was just a pawn for a bigger organization. Mr. White worked for that organization as well. Have Bond interrogate Mr. White, learn some stuff, then try to take that organization down. Sounds a bit like SPECTRE (Blofeld?) In that sense it can be a direct sequel.

Nov 24 - 10:29 AM

PeteHogan

Matthew Yeager

"really all they could do that is sequel-ish here is to continue the Bond story with references to the previous one, with an all new mission."

not true. Le Chiffre was just a pawn for a bigger organization. Mr. White worked for that organization as well. Have Bond interrogate Mr. White, learn some stuff, then try to take that organization down. Sounds a bit like SPECTRE (Blofeld?) In that sense it can be a direct sequel.

Nov 24 - 10:29 AM

Vitamin M

Matthew Haynes

That's because he wasn't the Bond we know until the end of the film, when the music kicks in, that's where he really became 007. So you didn't feel like you were watching Bond because you weren't. Much like you didn't see Batman until halfway through Batman Begins.
Why am I writing on such an old comment board....oh because your comments were unintelligent.

Jan 30 - 11:21 AM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Ethan Hawke's 10 Best Movies

The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures of great movie apes

Gone Girl Trailer
Gone Girl Trailer

New film by David Fincher

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile