I wonder if the folks at Disney have been force-feeding that magical cake to the studio's ambitious 3-D project, Alice in Wonderland. The movie's ticket sales ballooned to an outrageous $116.3 million take over the weekend to become 2010's highest-grossing movie in just three days. Brooklyn's Finest, another new release, was a laughably distant second in this caucus race: Its $13.5 million haul, by comparison, wouldn't even fill a rabbit hole.

There's more than magical cake involved in Alice's early success, though. The Tim Burton-directed fantasy opened on more than 7,300 screens and earned 70% of its receipts through lucrative 3-D screenings. Nothing mad about that strategy—as Avatar proved just a few months ago.

Personally, I liked the film (as creepy and unsettling as it sometimes was), and it was fun to watch in 3-D. And this film, unlike Lewis Carroll's classic children's tales, came with a real, honest-to-goodness story. Carroll's books were less about plot and more a wildly imaginative travelogue—a look at a curious country and its bizarre, croquet-playing residents through the eyes of a little girl. But Burton gave Alice something more to do here than shrink, have tea and chat with flowers and, as such, I think the film—while not as whimsical or fun as the books—had a little more narrative oomph. It suggests we could all use a little more "muchness," I think, and that's a good lesson for us at any age.

But enough from me. Did you see Alice? Was it positively trillig? Or did you find it much too muchness?

As stormy and dark as

This was the biggest opening weekend ever for both director Martin Scorsese and his star Leonardo DiCaprio. Scorsese's previous big dog was the Academy Award-winning crime drama The Departed, with $26.9 million on its opening weekend. And DiCaprio's best opening take before this, including Titanic, was $30.1 million for 2002's Catch Me if You Can.

Now, as the Plugged In reviewer, I've got to say that this is one of those flicks that has its appeal. Being an Alfred Hitchcock fan, I can't help but see stylistic fingerprints of the old master all over this well-crafted psychological twister. It's just unfortunate that Scorsese couldn't have taken some other cues from some Hitchcock classics and restrained from the bloody, foul-mouthed slurry he ended up shellacking this chunk of celluloid with.

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather see heroes scaling precariously on the faces of Mount Rushmore any day.

A Nicholas Sparks novel-turned-movie first shocked me with its tear-duct-draining ability in Los Angeles when I saw The Notebook. At the end of the show, even grown men in the enormous, loudly sniffling audience were grabbing for tissues. Dear John is more of the same: a far-fetched, histrionic flick from the Sultan of Sap. (Sparks probably owns stock in paper products.)

This picture didn't leave me teary-eyed, though women were crying all around me. I was just really irritated with Savannah (played by Amanda Seyfried), who jilted her soldier fiancée, John (Channing Tatum), while he was deployed.

Nonetheless, after recovering from my blinding ire and others' sobbing, I learned something from this film: Visceral reactions are often worth reexamining.

When reviewing the movie, I had to look beyond my own emotional blinders. I had to consciously step back and reevaluate the positive content in the film in order to be fair to Sparks and his cast. To her credit, Savannah does stick with her man in the end—and, OK, it's not John, but at least she's made a commitment. And John's self-sacrifice and forgiveness, which could be called redemptive and somewhat Christ-like, are worth some reflection.

Now, these things aren't enough for me to say, "Run out and see this picture!" Frankly, you're probably better off not, especially if you have a head cold. But they were enough to make me reconsider my own predispositions. I remembered anew to step back and give the benefit of the doubt.

has fallen to No. 2.

But today is not that day.

Avatar continued to hold a convincing lead on the weekend's box office charts, pulling down another $30 million to continue its march to becoming North America's top-grossing film of all time. Mel Gibson's R-rated Edge of Darkness crawled into the No. 2 slot with $17.1 million, according to Box Office Mojo, while another newcomer, When in Rome, debuted in third place with about $12.1 million.

Frankly, I'm surprised When in Rome did that well. It launched without a bevy of brand-name stars or a massive publicity push, so the fact it performed as well as it did may suggest movie-goers are hankering for a little bit of PG-13 romance. When you look at the releases lately, and the theaters have been awash in action and adventure and gore. When in Rome seems like a smart bit of counter-programming.

And indeed, When in Rome felt, in some respects, like a good soap: pretty sweet, refreshingly clean and completely unremarkable.

But it also left me in a bit of a lather.

See, the film, along with its normalish romcom attributes, served up a rather flighty attitude toward marriage. It suggests that the institution is inherently a gamble—a box of chocolates, in Forrest Gump lingo. "The passion is in the risk," one of the characters says. And that sorta rubbed me the wrong way.

I wrote in my review (and you can read the whole thing here) that:

It made me feel a little bad to hammer the movie on this point, since it obviously tried to be a bit cleaner than your typical romcom. Now I want to hear your take. Do you think I was too hard on the film?

This January, it looks like the film industry has found religion. (Or, if you're more cynical, you might say it's found that religion can be a nice selling point.)

The Book of Eli has made about $43 million in its first week of release. Avatar and The Lovely Bones are also overtly spiritual in their own ways. And I'm going to review Legion later today, a horror film that hooks on to Revelation for "inspiration."

Into this mix hops To Save a Life, the story of a teen grappling with the suicide of his one-time best friend. Of all the films I've mentioned, this is the most explicitly Christian of the bunch: Youth pastor Jim Britts wrote it, and the main character gets baptized midway through. But it's more a story of discipleship than conversion. It's about what it really looks like and means to be a Christian, day by day.

I had a chance to talk with both Britts and director Brian Baugh (the interview can be found here), and both say they didn't set out to make a "Christian" film, which I think means two things: One, they want this film to reach out to more than just Christians, and two, they want this film to transcend some of the aesthetic baggage that can go along with a "Christian film."

Now, there are a whole lotta really eye-rolling secular films out there. But because they're balanced with the likes of, say, Up and Avatar, nobody thinks the whole category is second-rate. With Christian films, there aren't enough of them being made to fully balance the scales. So if you end up seeing three or four that make you squirm, you conclude that they're all like that. Back to Britts and Baugh: If they want you to show their Christian-themed movie to your non-Christian friends, they've gotta make sure it passes the eye-roll test. If you find yourself rolling your eyes every 10 minutes over the dialogue or plot or what-have-you, it's not one you're likely going to enjoy yourself, much less be something you'll be proud to show someone else.

To Save a Life passes that test ... or at least it did for me. The film, stocked with professional actors and helmed by a Hollywood veteran, feels sleek and solid, and the story really smacked me between the eyes, both as a father of teens and a former teen myself. It's not quite to the level of Hollywood's best (no blue CGI creatures, no cameos by Tyler Perry), but it's competent and well-made, and if this is the future of Christian filmmaking, well, the future looks bright.

Will this movie become Christendom's next Fireproof, in terms of box-office success? Well, it's got a shot. To Save a Life is rolling to 441 screens today--substantial exposure for a Christian film, and maybe it'll be enough to make me want to talk about it again on Monday. We'll see.

Turns out, though, that's not necessarily so. In fact, a new study suggests just the opposite.

Researchers for the study, verbosely titled "Sex Doesn't Sell—Nor Impress! Content, Box Office, Critics, and Awards in Mainstream Cinema," examined films released between 2001 and 2005 and found that the biggest blockbusters—Spider-Man, Shrek 2, and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, among others, contained very little sexual content.

Go figure.

Craig Detweiler, director of the Center for Entertainment, Media and Culture at Pepperdine University, told CNN that some youth might actually be turned off by silver-screen sex, and that they're rebelling against their baby-booming parents by "not doing drugs, not sleeping around and not getting divorced." He notes the surging popularity of the relatively chaste (thus far) Twilight series and Jane Austen adaptations. "These stories are really about sexual separation," he told CNN. "They are all about wooing, not winning."

What next? Megan Fox starring in Emma?

But Avatar wasn’t the only show in town. In fact, three films—Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel—made more than $50 million and helped propel the box office to a record $278 million take. And if I was to guess, I’d imagine that a good many of you have seen at least one of these flicks.

The only one I can personally comment on is Sherlock Holmes, a PG-13 reworking of the classic literary detective. Forget the deerstalker hat, the demurely curved pipe and the ever-present magnifying glass. The 21st-century Holmes is still plenty smart, but he’s not just an investigator anymore: He’s an avenger, able to kick the stuffing out of nefarious henchmen as he searches for tell-tale balls of lint. And while he’s loitering in Victorian-era fight clubs, sharpening his hand-to-hand combat skills, his friend Dr. Watson is skulking around the wharf with a gun in his pocket and a blade in his cane.

Granted, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original Sherlock Holmes mysteries had some action in them. I believe both Holmes and Watson packed heat a time or two. But there’s a difference between characters prudently preparing themselves for violent confrontation and positively hankering for it. In an effort to bring us a Holmes and Watson that felt fresh and unfamiliar, director Guy Ritchie has taken two unique literary characters and made them—well, utterly familiar, and fairly indistinguishable from today’s crop of fictional crime-busting heroes. I mean, the only thing separating Holmes from Batman is a cowl, a car and Gotham City.

And that’s what we need in movies today: More homogeny.

But hey, I’m a fan of the original books, so perhaps I’m a bit biased. What did you think? And squeak in on The Chipmunks if you want, too. The Squeakquel probably won’t be on my movie-watching radar for a bit … but should it be?

The Princess and the Frog

Princess’ $25 million take was fit for—well, a princess. And there was a lot to like about it: a great heroine, a compelling bad dude, some really beautiful art … but I had a few reservations.

While I don’t think Disney’s trying to convert anyone to Voodoo, the film’s murky spirituality was problematic at times. Moreover, I didn’t think the film measured up, artistically, to Disney’s best. I mean, it’s great to see Disney return to its 2-D, hand-drawn animated roots and all, and it’s a lot better than, say, Disney’s anthropomorphic Robin Hood (which, truth be told, is my wife’s favorite Disney movie). But is it as good as Pinocchio? The Lion King? Beauty and the Beast? I think not.

But enough from me. Now it’s your turn: Did you see The Princess and the Frog? If so, what did you think? Did you rue that Voodoo? And how does it compare to Disney classics of yesteryear?