Box office boasting rights were too close to call Monday morning, what with two new PG-13 films, The Last Exorcism and Takers, separated by a mere $300,000. That's less than the cast of Jersey Shore spends on tanners.

According to boxofficemojo.com's early estimates, The Last Exorcism wound up on top, scaring up $21.3 million. The stylishly predictable caper flick Takers, playing on 700 fewer screens, snatched $21 million. Final figures, due out later today, will tell the tale. The Expendables and Eat Pray Love, movies which have walked hand-in-bloody-hand on the box office charts since their release earlier this month, slid to third and fourth place, respectively. Meanwhile, the much ballyhooed re-release of Avatar, what with its nine minutes of extra footage, barely cracked the top 12 with a $4 million take.

I was "lucky" enough to see both Exorcism and Takers, and both struck me as late-summer filler: Exorcism, plotted around a sham-artist exorcist who runs face-first into some apparent powers of darkness, had the most promising premise, but I didn't think the movie pulled it off. And Takers, I thought, was just ... dumb.

A while back I was at a party where the hosts played the movie

Happy Feet is just one recent example of Hollywood highlighting environmentalism and the plight of our planet. An Inconvenient Truth, The Day After Tomorrow, Arctic Tale and Avatar are just a few others. I had a similar reaction to Avatar's environmental message, in part because it's woven into a pantheistic, non-Christian worldview in which taking care of our world is indistinguishable from worshipping it.

So it was with a slight twinge of trepidation that I sat down to watch the new Disneynature documentary Oceans earlier this week. I love watching shows and movies that have to do with nature (my wife and are huge fans of Discovery Channel's Shark Week), but I don't like getting bonked on the head with moralistic, guilt-trip-inducing environmental messages.

Oceans does focus on what we should do for the environment—mostly toward the end. But it doesn't suggest that I'm a bad person if I don't drive a Prius or recycle everything. Nor does it suggest I should be bowing at the altar of Mother Earth. Mostly, in a very sober manner, it suggests that we humans need to recognize that our consumption and waste affect the oceans—and everything living there.

That's a good message. And one, it turns out, that's consistent with what we read about our responsibility to be good stewards of creation as described in the opening pages of Genesis. "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Gen. 1:28). A few pages later, Scripture clarifies this responsibility by saying that God put Adam in the Garden of Eden "to work it and take care of it" (Gen. 2:16).

Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of Christians—myself included—often respond with suspicion when it comes to any call to environmental awareness. Perhaps because of movies like Avatar, combined with a constant cultural drumbeat that can treat environmentalism like a religion instead of an important cause, we're tempted to toss out the environmental baby out with the bathwater (which, no doubt, is very polluted anyway).

Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of Earth Day (and the arrival of Oceans on the big screen and Avatar on video). With that in mind, I want to know how you react to environmental message movies. How does your faith shape the way you do or don't respond to exhortations to be more environmentally responsible? Do some films convict you and inspire you in this area? Or do they just make you mad? Or, maybe, both?

It's time to begin Plugged In's official live blog of the Oscars. Our red-carpet invites must have gotten lost in the mail this year, so we'll be watching it on television, just like you are, and writing about whatever seems news- or noteworthy to us. Please feel free to add your comments as we go along, and we'll try to address them on the fly. All times are U.S. Mountain Standard. Refresh your browser window to see our latest comments.

6:19 p.m.

Paul Asay (Plugged In Associate Editor): So I've torn open the bag of Doritos you brought, Steve, cracked my first Mountain Dew and am all ready for the Oscars--and Plugged In's first foray into the world of on-the-fly blogging. And what a night it will be, don't you think?

Steven Isaac (Plugged In Editor): Hmmm. I see here that by averaging the durations of the last 25 Oscar telecasts, subtracting 3 hours and then dividing by 2, we'll be done here in exactly 7.42 hours. Are we going to take nap breaks or just keep chugging soda all night?

Paul: Soda, Steve, soda.

Steven: Fine. But I'm not doing the Dew with you. I'm an old-school, straight-up Coca-Cola man myself.

Paul: OK, since nobody's paying us anything for all these product placements, why don't we get started with the most important question of the night: What'll take home Best Picture?

Steven: Blue is the new gold this year. No question in my mind that it'll be Avatar all the way. The whole point of this year's Oscar changes (10 nominees for Best Picture among them) is to make regular folks start thinking the Oscars are relevant to them again. And a whole lotta regular folks have seen Avatar. And most of them have loved it. Plus, the Academy voters do not want to antagonize the Na'vi. They've seen what happened to those surly earthlings.

Paul: True. Thing is, though, I don't think it's that great of a movie. I mean, wasn't it just sort of Dances With Wolves under a different moon? I'm thinking The Hurt Locker's going to take it. Gritty, taut, compelling ...

Steven: And quite a bit more foul than Avatar, if I remember your review correctly. (Not that that ever stopped Oscar from loving a film before.)

Paul: No it didn't.

Steven: Looks like they're done with their red-carpet dress-examinations and interviews. The theme music's coming up. We're under way, everybody.

6:33 p.m.

Paul: Wow. Those are quite the outfits. Getting off to an interesting start, I'd say, with Neil Patrick Harris.

Steven: And why wouldn't he get things rolling with a dope reference?

Paul: Oh, and they just talked about Woody Harrelson being high. Hmmm.

Steven: Off-color jokes and recognitions for big stars are always the order of the day each year as the Oscars get started. So much so that Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin's gag about a threesome probably went virtually unnoticed in most homes watching right now. But on a positive note, they made fun of the fact that movies are so often made based on video games!

6:48 p.m.

Paul: Oh, that Christoph Waltz leaves with the first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actor). No surprise there, but I hear he was incredible. You saw the film, Steve?

Steven: Incredible performance in the middle of an incredible film ... in quite a few ways, artistically but also as it comes to some pretty extreme violence, too.

Paul: I was kinda rooting for Christopher Plummer ... overdue from The Sound of Music. But I think Quentin Tarantino should get some sort of an award just for his chin. It's pretty impressive.

6:58 p.m.

Paul: Best Animated Film. Up wins. That makes me happy. I'm feeling so ... up! As if my house was being pulled into the sky by balloons! In a great year for animated films, this was still the best of the bunch. 'Course, Fantastic Mr. Fox was pretty impressive, too.

7:10 p.m.

Steven: We talked a bit earlier about some of the negative content included in this year's Oscar open, and didn't really have any time to talk "shop." So I want to register the fact now that that was one of the lamest opens I've seen in years and years. Martin and Baldwin can be really funny when they want to be and when they have good writers (the subject that's just coming up right now on the screen). But this just didn't cut it.

Paul: But on the up side, these awards are cruising right along. We might be outta here in 15 minutes or so, don't you think? And I think Tina Fey's hair looks nifty.

Steven: The Hurt Locker wins its first of the evening for Original Screenplay.

Paul: Hurt Locker, 1, Avatar, 0.

Steven: And about Tina's hair. It looks very, very much like my wife's hair looked in 2001. So I'm not so sure it's as cutting edge as Tina might think it is.

Paul: I'm just jealous when I see anyone who still has hair.

7:19 p.m.

Paul: The John Hughes salute is pretty nostalgic. I think I saw every single one of his films when I was a kid. That was before I became a Plugged In movie critic and therefore far more discerning, of course.

Steven: The burner from The Breakfast Club was everything I never was in high school. I was shy, nice and cared about everybody. That guy did none of those things ... on the surface. But on the inside he was more like me than I knew back then. Must be a lesson in that somewhere--and I hope its not that I was a closet burner.

7:28 p.m.

Paul: Just noticed the ratings box on the screen. It's TV-14 with a string of letters after it. Kind of interesting that, for an awards show that's technically for the "whole family," the rating is fairly exclusionary. Would they be covering just in case something unforseen happens? Or does it address some of the plunging necklines? Hmmm.

Steven: Or did they know going in that they were going to push a few boundaries?

Steven: Best Animated Short goes to a film that looks like it tweaks commercialism in society. Isn't it about time for an ABC commercial break?

7:39 p.m.

Paul: Love Ben Stiller as one of the Na'vi. Shouldn't he be taller, though?

Steven: This is the funniest thing all night. Clean, clever, self-aware. Can't say as I'm a huge Ben Stiller fan when it comes to his movies, but this is great.

7:52 p.m.

Steven: Geoffrey Fletcher won for Adapted Screenplay for Precious. My immediate response to his halting acceptance speech: You're not drawing a blank, like you think you are. You're the realest guy that's been on stage yet.

7:59 p.m.

Paul: The big categories haven't seen a surprise yet. Mo'Nique has nabbed Best Supporting Actress for her role in Precious. And, I must say, it's richly deserved. She played an absolute monster, but she still managed to give the character just a bit of heartbreaking humanity. It was a brutal role in a worthwhile but brutal film.

8:20 p.m.

Paul: Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner are up, talking about how horror "doesn't get the respect it deserves." A good montage, but I got to say, the scariest thing I've seen tonight was George Clooney's glare.

Steven: Why is it that we like to be scared by movies? We can disagree with the usefulness or morality of horror films all we want (and we do!) but it's indisputable that people adore jump scenes and creepy blades for fingers on mad men (from Freddy to Edward Scissorhands). Sin nature? Or just thrill-ride silliness? It's something Christians have been grappling with for as long as movies have been trying to scare us--and long before that.

Paul: Yeah, pretty interesting. It's something we do a fair amount of talking about at Plugged In. Man, after seeing the complete montage, I think I know what that TV-14 rating was for ... nothing like seeing aliens jump out of people's rib cages and centipedes crawling into people's mouths to make an Oscar ceremony complete.

Steven: And now they're on to the next thing: an award for sound effects. There's something that makes a huge difference in horror movies. Because if you've ever watched a scary movie with the sound off, you know that it's usually more funny than scary. We all really respond to sound.

8:27 p.m.

Paul: Another award for The Hurt Locker. Wow. I think that makes it Hurt Locker 3, Avatar 1. Steve, are you still sure Avatar's going to win Best Picture?

Steven: Well, sure, why shouldn't I be? Didn't the Na'vi get to vote for their own film? And an alien vote counts twice. They're just letting all the little guys win a few before gobbling up the big one.

8:35 p.m.

Paul: Jeto wonders whether we think the Paranormal Activity spoof clip was funny. It was! But not as funny as Ben Stiller's Na'vi impersonation.

Steven: Cinematography award goes to Avatar. So, Paul, that's one more for the blue team.

8:39 p.m.

Paul: James Taylor's playing for the annual "In Memoriam" segment. This is one of my favorite parts of the ceremony, as morbid as that probably sounds. Natasha Richardson, Karl Malden ... I feel the sudden need to get a tissue.

Steven: Um, I didn't know "In My Life" was supposed to be a sad, funeral-type song. My wife and I had this sung at our wedding!

8:50 p.m.

Steven: My daughter's in ballet. She'd love the dance montage if I dared let her watch a TV-14 evening of Hollywood hype! (She's 9.) Maybe it'll be on YouTube tomorrow.

Paul: Tomorrow? It's probably posted right now!

Steven: This is much better than the Vegas-style stuff at the beginning of the show. Nicely choreographed. Very expressive in a cool, old-school way.

Paul: I never knew you were such a dance nerd, Steve.

Steven: A dancing daughter has a way of changing a man.

8:55 p.m.

Paul: Avatar's pulled even with The Hurt Locker with its win in Best Visual Effects. Maybe you were right after all, Steve.

Steven: A half-billion-dollar production budget should buy you at least a Best Visual Effects award.

9:04 p.m.

Paul: Well, it looks like lots of you are pretty pleased with Up's win for Best Original Score. I completely agree. I just hear the first notes of that song and I just start thinking of Paradise Falls, talking dogs and balloons. And I can't help but smile.

Steven: The Cove has won Best Documentary Feature.

Paul: What a coincidence! Steve and I are wearing Snuggies here at Plugged In headquarters, too!

9:12 p.m.

Paul: You know, I don't think I've heard an acceptance speech yet that made me roll my eyes. Is this unusual, or am I just getting more tolerant in my old age?

Steven: The night is young yet--at least by Oscar standards.

OK, so maybe he is king of the world. The movie world, at least.

I'm talking, of course, about director James Cameron. On Tuesday, his sci-fi behemoth Avatar surpassed Titanic—also a Cameron-helmed film—as the highest-grossing North American film of all time. Cameron's blue-skinned protagonists pulled ahead of his tragic ship-sinking story by a margin of about $300,000 ($601.1 million to $600.8 million).

And that's just the domestic market, mind you. The previous week saw Avatar eclipse Titanic as the highest-grossing movie worldwide. As of Feb. 3, Avatar had raked in more than $2 billion internationally, compared to Titanic's former record of $1.8 billion. Both Titanic marks were records that many people thought would never sink.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Avatar's rush to the top has been the speed at which it's accomplished those feats. Avatar stole the crown in just 47 days. On day 47 of its cinematic voyage, Titanic had taken in "only" $311 million.

I have to confess, I've been checking Avatar's numbers at Box Office Mojo obsessively for a couple of weeks now. I'm not a huge James Cameron fan, and I didn't think much of Titanic. So I've been looking forward to seeing that that ship go down—even if it got torpedoed by another Cameron film that's not without some philosophical and content issues of its own.

Many have noted that Avatar's record-setting numbers need to be kept in comparison. Inflation and higher prices for 3D and IMAX screenings have accelerated the film's box office take, which makes comparing it to everything that's gone before something of an apples-to-oranges proposition. Titanic has still sold more tickets than Avatar. And when you factor inflation into the formula, Avatar clocks in at yawn-worthy No. 21 on Box Office Mojo's all-time list, in terms of North American sales. At the top? Gone with the Wind, a 1939 film whose $198 million gross (which includes subsequent theatrical re-releases) translates to a whopping $1.5 billion in today's dollars. So give Avatar an asterisk in the record books.

Still, if higher ticket prices were really that much of a contributing factor, you'd think we would have seen scores of films top the Titanic's numbers since its release 12 years ago. And that just hasn't happened. Only The Dark Knight got within striking distance. So maybe Avatar's numbers are a big deal after all.

As Scott Mendelson, film critic and pundit for Film Threat, Huffington Post and Mendelson's Memos wrote a couple weeks ago, "Avatar is showing consistency unlike any event film in recent memory, and it's not even close to finished. … With sell-outs still being reported left and right … and the awards race yet to factor in, Avatar may just be getting started. Let's see where the movie stops before we discuss asterisks and mitigating factors."

Avatar

So, with all that money floating around (so to speak), lots of folks are trying to capitalize on Avatar's success—and that includes the government of China.

In an effort to pull in some fresh tourist coin, folks in the Zhangiajie province of China have renamed a picturesque pillar of rock "Avatar Hallelujah Mountain." The striking geological feature, which had previously been called "Southern Sky Column," is reported to have been an inspiration for Avatar's magnificent floating chunks of rock (though, it should be noted, the Chinese version is rooted firmly to the ground).

"Pandora is far but Zhangjiajie is near," the province's official website proclaims. According to Reuters, tourists can sign up for a "Magical Tour to Avatar-Pandora."

Some may be surprised that China would scrap a perfectly good name simply to capitalize on a successful film. But really, we're all about making a buck these days, and I think it's a trend that might catch on.

Perhaps vast swaths of barren New Mexico, where The Book of Eli was filmed, could be renamed "Eli's Post Apocalyptic Plains." Maybe the owners of the Baltimore Ravens could rename the team "The Blind Siders" and slap a picture of Sandra Bullock on the team helmet. Maybe all of London could redub itself "Sherlock Holmesville"—at least until the next big movie to feature the city comes along ("Wolfmanburg?"). The possibilities are endless.

Personally, I can't wait to go to Home Depot and buy me a specially marketed, retractable "Extraordinary Measurer."

Avatar

But this weekend, James Cameron's titanic blue-hued blockbuster had a bit (just a bit) of competition from Denzel Washington's  The Book of Eli, which slid into the No. 2 slot with $31.6 million (compared to Avatar's $41.3 million) and was the second biggest opening in Washington's career (just behind American Gangster). The Lovely Bones, in its first week of wide release, finished third with $17.1 million.

Avatar dominance aside, I'll be really interested in how the R-rated Eli does in the days and weeks to come. I suspect it may have some legs—particularly among Christians.

This is not to say it should, necessarily. It's got loads of violence, and we know violence isn't exactly the healthiest stuff to consume in a media diet. But evangelicals have always been a bit more at peace with violence in film than, say, bare bosoms, and frankly, lots of my Christian friends have been asking me about this flick. I know of at least one men's Bible study (!) that's attending the film en masse.

And I understand the appeal: Washington's Eli is, literally, on a mission from God—protecting the last Bible on earth with all the vim and vigor his gun-toting, blade-thwacking self can muster. It's got just scads of really powerful, really positive messages and lots of ideas to discuss. I particularly liked the twist at the end—where Eli's book is worthless to the man who doesn't have the heart or wherewithal to understand it.

It has the sort of spiritual themes I'd love to show and discuss with my teenage kids—if it wasn't for all the flying blood and hacked limbs and cannibalism and such.

In my review, I essentially said that Eli's violence doesn't nullify Eli's message. But neither does Eli's message excuse its violence. The tension between these two elements made it a particularly tricky film for me to review.

The film hasn’t gotten my eight bucks yet, though. Like you, I like to check out Plugged In before I run to the theater. And Adam’s review gave me pause: As visually appealing as the thing is, do I want to wade through all the peripheral stuff? The spirituality? The arguably anti-American subtext? The mostly naked aliens? Frankly, I got my fill of blue-tinged nudity in Watchmen.

Hey, I like CGI extravagance as much as the next guy, but right now, this film feels like something I should see (for my job), not something I want to see (just for fun). So maybe I’ll toss it out to y’all. For those of you who saw Avatar, did Cameron, as Adam suggest, out-Lucas (Star Wars creator George) Lucas? Did you walk away dabbing your eyes, gnashing your teeth or simply saying, "hmmmm … interesting"?