While a good chunk of the receipts came from showing the movie in 3D, it would have handily beat all comers this weekend, as the only competition was last week’s winner, “The Karate Kid” (coming in second with $29 million) and “Jonah Hex,” landing in theaters with an eighth-place, $5 million thud.

Armond White notwithstanding, “Toy Story 3″ had critics and exiting audiences singing its praises. It’s currently the third-highest reviewed film on Rotten Tomatoes, and has filmgoers saying they’ll return to see it again at a whopping 68 percent.

While it handily trumps the $70 million opening weekend of “The Incredibles,” “Toy Story 3″ had the same audience numbers as earlier Pixar releases “Monsters, Inc.” and “Finding “Nemo.”

Here’s the weekend’s top ten, courtesy of BoxOfficeMojo.com:

In a joint statement with Peter Jackson on Tolkien infohub TheOneRing.net, Del Toro says:

In light of ongoing delays in the setting of a start date for filming “The Hobbit,” I am faced with the hardest decision of my life. After nearly two years of living, breathing and designing a world as rich as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I must, with great regret, take leave from helming these wonderful pictures. I remain grateful to Peter, Fran and Philippa Boyens, New Line and Warner Brothers and to all my crew in New Zealand. I’ve been privileged to work in one of the greatest countries on earth with some of the best people ever in our craft and my life will be forever changed. The blessings have been plenty, but the mounting pressures of conflicting schedules have overwhelmed the time slot originally allocated for the project. Both as a co-writer and as a director, I wish the production nothing but the very best of luck and I will be first in line to see the finished product. I remain an ally to it and its makers, present and future, and fully support a smooth transition to a new director.

Executive producer and director of “The Lord Of The Rings” films Peter Jackson responded with, “We feel very sad to see Guillermo leave the Hobbit, but he has kept us fully in the loop and we understand how the protracted development time on these two films, due to reasons beyond anyone’s control – has compromised his commitment to other long term projects. The bottom line is that Guillermo just didn’t feel he could commit six years to living in New Zealand, exclusively making these films, when his original commitment was for three years. Guillermo is one of the most remarkable creative spirits I’ve ever encountered and it has been a complete joy working with him. Guillermo’s strong vision is engrained into the scripts and designs of these two films, which are extremely fortunate to be blessed with his creative DNA.”

The film was previously delayed due to MGM Studios-Warner Brothers rights claim, and this news breaks merely two days after Del Toro announced that the film would not be shot in 3D – and only a day after word that the two-film series would be put on the back burner.

“The Hobbit” – which will be a two-part break-up of the book, a la “Harry Potter And The Deathly Hollows” – will still be executive produced by Peter Jackson and written by Jackson, Del Toro, Philipp Boyens, and  Fran Walsh. Boyens, Walsh, and Jackson had previously collaborated on “The Lord Of The Rings” films, “The Frighteners,” and most recently, “The Lovely Bones.”

While Carrie Bradshaw and crew won the Friday gate receipts with a strong $13.1 million, poor word-of-mouth and brutal critic’s reaction trickled down to dampen the take during the weekend.

Disney’s “Prince of Persia: The Sands Of Time” landed in third place on its debut weekend, with a lower-than-expected $30.1 million estimate.

Here’s the Top Ten from the weekend, courtesy of BoxOfficeMojo.com:

Personally, I hope he dumped her. I assume, if you’re a man, you’re up on all things Megan Fox, but as a woman, I’m kind of embarrassed to include her in the female gender. Her acting skills rival Hayden Christensen (of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader fame) for some of the worst I’ve seen.

Plus, she’s the most hypocritical bisexual woman on the planet. If she’s even bisexual any more. It sounds like she’s about to marry that dorky kid from 90210. I mean the original 90210, not that new-fangled version that’s on now. Which leads me to my favorite Megan Fox quote ever:

I have no question in my mind about being bisexual. But I’m also a hypocrite: I would never date a girl who was bisexual, because that means they also sleep with men, and men are so dirty that I’d never want to sleep with a girl who had slept with a man.

It’s possible that comparing Michael Bay to Hitler was the final nail in her Transformers coffin, though. And now Bay wants to exchange one vapid, pretty face for another.

The list is down to three, with Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (What? You’ve never heard of her? That makes two of us.) as the front-runner. I would have linked you to her IMDB page, but that would only tell you that she was in several Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show specials.

Sure, Tyra Banks might tell you have to be an actress to walk the Victoria’s Secret catwalk, but I’m not buying it. I can’t make any assumptions about Rosie’s acting talent, though, because she’s not an actress. I’m sure she can rock a bra like a pro, but how does that transfer to the big screen?

There are two other candidates who might beat Huntington-Whiteley. Seriously, with a name like that I expect her to be in riding breeches chasing a hare through a grassy field. Then she’ll ring a little bell and the butler will bring her some sparkling water in a champagne flute and she’ll watch someone groom the hounds.

Sarah Wright, whose biggest claim to fame is “The House Bunny” (starring Anna Faris), so you know she must be on the verge of winning an Academy Award. And Brooklyn Decker, who’s a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model.

Clearly, Bay isn’t looking for serious acting chops here. And frankly, anyone with a pinky-full of talent would out-shine Shia LeBouf.

Megan Fox’s chest did that in the first two movies, right?

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who replaces Megan in “Transformers 3.” I’m in it for the transformer sound effects.

RCC Rating: Worth Seeing At A Matinee

Closing out the “Shrek” series (really, honest), “Shrek Forever After” has our loveable ogre making the wrong deal with the wrong person at the wrong time, and making a big mess of the whole universe.

After being pushed and bugged and pestered at his children’s first birthday party, Shrek has decided that he prefers the life of a “real” ogre, being chased with pitchforks and torches, hated by everyone, screamed at, and of course, being the subject of wanted posters everywhere. So, in a moment where I’m assuming he is drunk (judging by the pile of “eyeball-tinis” on the table in front of him), he signs a deal with Rumpelstiltskin (casting off a vibe that’s half TV pitchman, half used-car salesman) to trade any day of his life for a single day as a hated ogre. Carelessly, he tells Rumpelstiltskin to take “any day you want” from his childhood. So (surprise, surprise), Rumpelstiltskin takes the day he was born, resulting in a completely different world caused by the best friend of any “Star Trek” script writer, a time-travel paradox.

Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz return as the voices of Shrek, his best friend Donkey, and his wife Fiona respectively. However, this time, they are joined by Walt Dohrn, who plays the bad guy, Rumpelstiltskin, a shifty dealer in magical contracts. It was directed by Mike Mitchell (who not only voiced a few people in the movie, but also directed “Sky High”), and written by Josh Klausner (“Date Night,” “Shrek the Third”) and Darren Lemke (who wrote, directed and acted in “Lost”).

I came into this movie fully expecting a repeat of the third movie. And you know what? I didn’t get it. Maybe it’s just because I love time-travel, or alternate universe plotlines, but I really liked this movie. The plot wasn’t crap, the characters weren’t rushed in their development (which was actually there), and the ending was satisfactory. And the whole “changed timeline” thing wasn’t pushed too heavily, which was great. Because the last thing I wanted to see was watching them point out shocking differences again and again, and instead just getting on with the story (which I also expected to see…and didn’t! How ’bout that!).

This movie is not without its bad points, however. There were a couple of really ham-handed moments where Klausner and Lemke were shoe-horning in jokes that made me want to shoot myself in the face, but I think the rest of the movie almost made up for it (I couldn’t forget them, but I can ignore them easily enough). Also, there were a couple of parts that tried so hard to be funny and just fell flat.

One strange thing about this movie is that it doesn’t really seem to be geared towards one audience. It has a deep message that might be lost on kids, but it also has that goofy, animated atmosphere that might ruin that message for some adults. Sitting in the middle ground, I found it very enjoyable, as did the screening audience, comprised of families and critics.

“Shrek Forever After” is good for the whole family to watch together. You should really see in the theaters, as it would lose its charm on the small screen. And what spectacular charm it has.

The specifics of the J.J. Abrams-produced film are hush-hush right now, with information slowly leaking out from studio execs and such, but it has been confirmed that Brad Bird will make his live-action directorial debut with the Tom Cruise-starring “Mission: Impossible IV”. Nothing else about the film is known except for an expected release date (which was recently pushed back to December 16, 2011).

“Mission: Impossible IV” will supersede the planned “1906″, which was supposed to be Bird’s first live-action film, but has been put on hold a tleast until after “Mission”.

With “Mission” being released in late 2011, but “John Carter Of Mars” (the first live-action Andrew Stanton (another Pixar director) film) being released in the summer of 2012, it would appear that Bird will become the first Pixar director to make it into live-action. But, since “John Carter” is currently shooting, it would only be on a technicality. Does it count? That’s for you to decide.

RCC Rating: Worth Full Price On Opening Weekend

“Iron Man 2″ gives moviegoers another fun thrill ride, sticking with most of the elements that made the first film a smash hit. It’s the perfect kickoff to the summer movie season, and another solid building block for Marvel’s Avengers series.

When Jon Favreau helmed the first “Iron Man” film in 2008, Robert Downey, Jr. was still rebuilding his image from rehab, and the Marvel slate of the Avengers was an untested commodity. The movie was an unqualified smash, earning over a half-billion dollars globally and laying out the framework for Marvel to dominate the movie hero landscape for years to come.

The second “Iron Man” film picks up precisely where we left Tony Stark at the end of the first film, where he tells the world “I am Iron Man.” Stark then makes good on his pledge to be a one-man peace force, knocking out armed regimes around the world and becoming a superhero savior in a year’s time – much to the chagrin of a power-hungry Senator (Garry Shandling), who wants Stark to give the Iron Man suit over to the military.

What Stark can’t tell the world is the element that powers the life-saving device implanted in his chest (as well as the Iron Man suit) is slowly poisoning him. As he races to find an alternative power source to keep his heart going, he’s attacked by a menacing, whip-wielding Ivan Vanko who has constructed a super-suit of his own.

Downey is just as charming and filled with attitude as ever, and keeps Stark from being a loathsome boor. While it would be easy for other actors to play Tony Stark as a highly annoying lothario, Downey plays up Stark’s intelligence even when his better angels have fled for the hills.

With Sam Rockwell and Mickey Roarke, Favreau has cast two of the greatest scenery-chewing actors working today as the movie’s villains. Rockwell’s an acquired taste for some, and he has the smarm turned up to 11 as Justin Hammer, the arms dealer who wants so badly to be Tony Stark yet isn’t smart enough, or half as charismatic. It’s another over-the-top turn for Rockwell, and one I liked a lot.

Meanwhile, Mickey Roarke is nasty and menacing as Ivan Vanko, a dark universe nemesis of Stark. He’s every bit as brilliant and resourceful as Stark, but his quiet seething turns him into a menacing behemoth. Roarke leers and glowers his way through the movie, bringing a needed element of danger to the party.

While I expected the much-publicized switch from Terrence Howard to Don Cheadle for Stark’s best friend, Lt. Col. James Rhodes, to be a non-factor… it’s not. Howard had great on-screen chemistry with Downey, that Cheadle doesn’t seem to match.

The weak link in “Iron Man 2″ might be the women in Stark’s inner circle. Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts, who was a necessary stabilizing force for Stark’s whirlwind life and ascent to Iron Man stardom is elevated to be the new CEO of Stark Industries, yet her interaction with Stark diminishes. The interplay between Downey and Paltrow was a highlight of the first film, and that spark seems to be missing from the sequel. That spark might have been saved for Potts’ assistant, Natalie (Scarlett Johansson), who seems like an interesting character… had she been given better treatment. We know something’s “up” with Natalie, but the film could have used a lot more of her.

Favreau has done a bang-up job of ratcheting up everything that made “Iron Man” a hit – the action sequences are taut, the on-screen interplay between the characters is (mostly) on the money, and the effects are all top-notch. “Iron Man 2″ is a really enjoyable flick, with just as much to love as its predecessor.

Details are scant, other than show runner Michael Patrick King has come back to write and direct the sequel, taking place two years after Carrie married Mr. Big. From the looks of it, the Fab Four is on safari, and looking amazing in 120-degree desert heat. Huh.

“Sex And The City 2″ romps into theaters May 28.

…and your synopsis:

Voldemort’s power is growing stronger. He now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to finish Dumbledore’s work and find the rest of the Horcruxes to defeat the Dark Lord. But little hope remains for them, so everything they do must go as planned…

Part I of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” premieres November 2010, with Part II in theatres July 2011.

As the last two installments of the Harry Potter movie series loom ever closer, there’s a lot of speculation about how the story is going to be modified, and one of the hints that We Who Have Read It are noticing off the bat: Didn’t Ron stay home pouting while Hermione and Harry went off on their wacky adventures?  Maybe it’s an early scene we’re given a glimpse of in today’s USA Today, or maybe they’re adjusting the story to include (almost) everybody’s favorite ginger.  (I personally would not mind that, so long as it wasn’t at the expense of the deeper parts of the tale.)

Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson in the first official production picture from "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"

Here’s what I found interesting, though.  There’s mention that a scene exists where Ron’s affection for Hermione is challenged by a curse wherein he sees Harry and Hermione in a pretty hot-and-heavy embrace and… wait for it… Harry’s naked.

Come on, man.  We all got to see the posters for “Equus” (since few of us were lucky enough to live in a place where we could see it onstage), and we get the message.  Dan is a big boy, a grown-up, a real adult.  He has all the appropriate parts necessary for reproduction.  (Also, he’s not circumcised.)  He should be justifiably terrified of being type-cast as “that wizard kid”, but isn’t going way far in the other direction?

Dan Radcliffe isn’t the only one, though.  Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) took on a “bad boy” role in “Cherrybomb”, a film festival treat that recently got a distributor and should be out next year.

The girls are being a little more pragmatic, it seems.  Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) and Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley) both have started university, presumably to nudge the future in their favor.

BBC News had an excellent set of interviews with the stars recently that suggested that one of the best things to come out of the “Harry Potter” series isn’t happening on screen at all.  In our current age of celebrity meltdown everywhere we turn, it seems that these kids we’ve watched grow up through the years at Hogwart’s are really genuinely solid, level-headed people who will likely provide a completely different kind of inspiration in the future: as examples of how to handle success well and avoiding the pitfalls of over-inflated egotism.

Well, we can hope.  I’m rooting for them.