RobertPattinson Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Good news, Twilight fans. You have the first official news for the fourth Twilight installment, courtesy of our own Jen Yamato, FearNet and the New Moon junket.* The magically-coiffed Robert Pattinson has confirmed that Breaking Dawn will begin filming in Fall 2010, and that it's penciled into his schedule for next year.

Of course, Dawn remains unconfirmed by Summit. The most controversial installment of the Twilight series, rumors swirl that the studio is hesitant to take it to the big screen. If it is made, it seems likely that it could be split into two films a'la Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Personally, I don't see Summit risking the money they'd make on #4, and they'll find a way to steer around the gorier aspects of the book. But now you know when to look for it, though you still have the madness of Eclipse pre-production to get through.

Pattinson also dished on the movie I want to mark on my calender (Sorry, I dig boots and spurs more than vampires), a Western called Unbound Captives. The directorial debut of Madeleine Stowe, it stars Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, and Pattinson. The young heartthrob revealed that it's tenatively scheduled to begin shooting in early 2010, and he sounds enthusiastic for a role that'll be miles away from Edward Cullen. "I'm playing a kid who is kidnapped by Comanches when he was four years old, and he is brought up by them. His mother spends her entire life trying to find me and my sister. When she finds us, we can't remember who she is and can't remember anything about the Western culture she grew up in. I speak Comanche the whole movie. You can't really speak more differently from Edward."

[Special thanks also goes to Collider who apparently pried the Breaking Dawn date out of Mr. Pattinson]

Once you've made emotional mincemeat out of legions of adoring young girls, what's next? How do you transcend tweendom and seduce the seas of adult women (Twilight moms not included)? Bedding Nicole Kidman is a start. Screen Daily reports that Robert Pattinson and Kidman have signed on to star in an adaptation of Guy De Maupassant's Bel Ami. Adapted by Rachel Bennette, the film will be directed by Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod.

Published in 1885, Bel Ami is an erotic tale of journalist Georges Duroy and how he sleeps his way to the top of Parisian high society. After a few years of military service in Algeria, Duroy works as a clerk in Paris until he becomes a journalist, aided by Mme Forestier (presumably Kidman). She helps write his first articles, he works his way up to chief editor, and she uses her political connections to get him the information he needs, which also leads him to his own network of increasing power. Bit by bit, he sleeps with influential women, using his loins to work his way to the top.

If you've seen Little Ashes, this is just wiping away the Dali quirks and throwing Pattinson into a Parisian life roughly 25 years earlier -- which wasn't quite the visual and social jump then as it is now. And while I wonder why Kidman so often gets cast opposite young males (at least this one's of age!), it's not hard to imagine a retro world of Parisian enticement with Pattinson and Kidman at the center of it.

Production begins this February in London and Budapest.

Robert Pattinson is sporting a pretty interesting balance of cinematic gigs. On the one hand, he's the drool-producing heartthrob from Harry Potter and -- most especially -- Twilight. On the other hand, he's playing the awkward young man in films like The Bad Mother's Handbook and How to Be. It's not exactly the sort of superstar roster we're used to (especially once you add Dali into the mix!), and always makes me wonder what we can expect from the future.

But for now, just in time for the New Moon craze, his music flick How to Be will hit DVD shelves on November 17. In honor of the event, a clip from the film has hit the net, courtesy of Access Hollywood. (Check it out after the jump.) The video finds Robert's character psyching himself up for a performance in the mirror, before throwing the harmonica in his mouth and hitting the stage to sing a song called "I'm Doing Fine." If you're not used to his singing, this is not really an indication of his singing voice (go here to hear one of his actual songs). I'm guessing he's supposed to be playing a crappy singer?

In other Twilight news, Variety reports that the first vampy film will be rereleased in theaters for one night -- November 19 -- as a warm-up to New Moon. And lastly -- The Hollywood Reporter posts that Washington is opening up a family restaurant called Volterra to cater to the hordes of fans that descend upon the state. Does that mean a sea of wait-staff who must wear heavy white makeup and long red robes? Hired actors to sit as the Volturi members and randomly bite into customers when they're hungry? Let's hope the theme stays only with the name, or that might be a little much. Or, at the very least, a little too raunchy for the family crowd.

It's not exactly surprising that Stephenie Meyers' world of Twilight has gotten copycat merchandise like porn and sex toys. The entire series is about the -- at first -- pent up sexual urges of a human and her vampiric paramour. But this one makes me laugh to no end because it's more suggestive than blatant. The blog Twitarded has thrown up the following ditty -- Twilight underwear where Edward's face is not only on the outside, but on the inside. (Just check the pic over to the right.)

The underwear were custom-made with Pattinson's face on the front, his lips on the inside, his signature along the seam, and the hand carrying the apple along the tuckus, which has too many, erm, unsanitary connotations to be a coincidence. The underwear was made with the idea that when it is time for fantasy, RPattz is there. But... Is it going too far to make links between vampires and menstruation? Sorry, but when we're talking about underwear for girls and bloodsuckers, it's really the first thing that comes to mind. I can't help it.

Here comes confession time. I once made something similar for a friend with Colin Farrell as a joke, but it didn't turn out nearly this professional looking. Have you ever made yer own fan-centric underoos? I used to think I was the only one with Christopher Walken underwear (with the face on the outside, I swear), and found out on Sunday that I'm not the only one with homemade Walken briefs. Truth!

[via Bust]

When I first saw Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, I thought "Well, he's cute." I never thought about him again. (When it comes to Potter crushes, mine will always be the dude with the long blonde mane.) Who could imagine that his would be the face that would launch a thousand shrieks? Still, Pattinson's story isn't that unusual and girls have screamed and cried over plenty of handsome lads, and will probably do so until the end of time. But is it really worth filming a documentary about?

Someone thought so. According to Screen Daily, UK distributor Revolver has snapped up Robsessed, a feature length documentary that studies the "the teenage phenomenon known as being Rob-sessed" (also known as puberty). It'll follow Pattinson's career from a relative nobody to being Edward Cullen and a man who gets hit by a cab while running from fans. Hopefully it will take some time and examine all his likes, dislikes, solve what's going on with his hair, or reveal just what he was doing at my downtown Denver fish-and-chips place. (I'm not kidding. There's a signed photo of him at the restaurant that thanks them personally for "the best fish and chips!")

The documentary will be released in the US and the UK in November to coincide with the release of New Moon. They're also planning to release a boxed set that includes Pattinson's little seen (we wonder why) 2006 film Haunted Airmen. So much Pattinson in one month might just inspire someone to film Robsessed 2: The Reckoning.

...And I kind of liked it.

The first time I saw it was at an all-media screening full of women and the lucky teenage girls who knew them – daughters, nieces, friends' daughters, you get the idea.

(Pet peeve: They took away every. Single. Person's. Cellphone. And made us check them like coats at the most insanely tween club ever. I wanted to die. I understand the need to stop rude movie-goers from texting or Twittering during a movie, especially teen girls typing, "OMG RPattz sparkles!" But still, it only encourages me to hide my iPhone in an orifice next time I go to an all-media. Hopefully, it won't come down to full body searches, though.)

And even though a few girls did scream when Robert Pattinson's name came onscreen, and when he appeared onscreen, and when he took his shirt off onscreen, there was some giggling too. They knew it was silly, but the overwhelming crushed-out feeling took over – you know it from when you plastered posters on your wall, and yes, for the most part, those people were just as silly. (Except me, 'cause I had a Death poster from the Sandman comics. That's just how I rolled.)

It was like I could hear – no, feel – them blossoming into womanhood when he appeared onscreen. Creepy.

Well, we've all had our fun and made our jokes, but I think that the fans of the blockbusting vamp romance Twilight have had just about enough of us. At least, that seems to be the case in an editorial titled Enough with the 'Twilight' fan-bashing media antics already, over at The Examiner. The editorial was a response to a piece on The Frisky about Twilight conventions that was full of the usual cheap shots and snark that accompanies all Twilight news. But The Examiner isn't the only one defending the Twi-hards -- here's an editorial from our own Erik Davis over on Movies.com about how Twilight actually saved fandom.

I'll be the first to admit that, yeah, I was one of those people taking cracks. I made jokes about toothless sparkly vamps, and all the rest. But I've started to wonder if us writers have crossed the line of gentle teasing and into 'bullying'. So what makes Twilight jokes any different than cracks about Trekkies or a geek who lives in their mom's basement? For me, it was the idea that these girls (or women) were just silly little hormonally charged chicks looking for a glimpse of Robert Pattinson rather than honest to goodness fans of the series (however flawed it may be).

When it came to Twilight, it seemed that the general consensus was: Girls like it, so it must be stupid. Well, I've had enough conversations over my lifetime about how something is a 'dude thing', that I'm fully versed in the idea that certain stories appeal to men and women sometimes. But what has me ticked is the idea that when you pull the dude card, it's in a tone that says, "You just don't understand, it's a dude thing". Whereas when it comes to us girls, it's more along the lines of disdain as in: 'Eww, that's a chick thing".

After the jump: will I mend my Cullen-bashing ways?...

So Twilight kicked ass at the Teen Choice Awards this week, picking up 11 highly prestigious trophies for groundbreaking stuff like "Choice Movie Rumble" and "Choice Movie Liplock." And the news just made me sigh, and feel very old, and very tired.

Because vampires? Sorry, kids. I am so over vampires.

It's not that I begrudge today's teens, tweens and "Twilight moms" their love for vamps. It's just that I've got a couple of decades of vampire books, movies, and TV shows under my belt while for them, the honeymoon period with broody blood-suckers is still in full swing. If Robert Pattinson looks more to me like a pouty emo kid who should be serving up my triple sugar-free vanilla latte than a 104-year-old creature of the night, that says more about me than it says about Twilight fans. I've been reading about vampires, watching movies with vampires, and enjoying the occasional TV show about vampires longer than many of them have been alive -- and honestly, I've never understood why women find them so dreamy.

Of course, I never got the fascination with that particular breed of male hero at all, going all the way back to my early exposure to chick-lit and romance novels. I like my men funny, personable, and emotionally available. The vaguely dangerous bad boy with his gloomy demeanor, quick temper and withholding of affection, who only opens up when he finally finds True Love in the arms of the heroine ... that's not for me. I'd have kicked Heathcliff to the curb for being whiny and self-centered, and Mr. Darcy's rudeness would have placed him firmly on my uh-uh, not-in-a-million-years list. Vampires are merely a more cold-blooded take on the same hard-to-wrangle men that star in all those books with the ripped-shirt Fabios on the covers.