The film reteams director Ridley Scott for the fifth time with today’s ultimate A-list macho man, Russell Crowe, but the reception will not be that of a “Gladiator.” The problem, I think, is that there’s another general consensus developing about the film amidst the very mixed reviews: it’s just not a whole lot of fun.

Our own Will Harris, in his 2.5 out of 5 star review, admits the film looks terrific but also that it feels completely unnecessary. Roger Ebert is even more pointed. After opening up his review about the slow death of innocence and joy in movies — something we’ll all forget about the next time Pixar releases something — and remembering great Robins of yore, he moves in for the rhetorical kill:

Have we grown weary of the delightful aspects of the Robin Hood legend? Is witty dialogue no longer permitted? Are Robin and Marion no longer allowed to engage in a spirited flirtation? Must their relationship seem like high-level sexual negotiations? How many people need to be covered in boiling oil for Robin Hood’s story to be told these days? How many parents will be misled by the film’s PG-13 rating? Must children go directly from animated dragons to skewering and decapitation, with no interval of cheerful storytelling?

Okay, so I think Roger is still a bit grumpy that he’s one of the few critics and filmgoers who wasn’t thoroughly charmed by “How to Train Your Dragon,” but his point is well taken. It really does seem at times like the movies have largely ceded real wit and fun to television, and his view of this “Robin Hood” really does mirror the reaction I’m hearing pretty much everywhere. Of course, it’s not like people listen to critics, but critics are, I once again remind you, people. The lack of emotional resonance could hamper the film’s chances of making a large profit over time, especially given its engorged $200 million budget. Universal is a studio badly in need of a home run. This may not be it.

In any case, at a projected $40-50 million or so, “Robin Hood” stands not much chance of beating “Iron Man 2” in it second weekend. For all the sense of mild-letdown the Marvel-Paramount superhero flick generated from the first film, it’s reviews and word-of-mouth are pretty darn solid. Even with a rather large possible 60 percent drop in attendance, given last weeks $128 million and change (a relatively steep decline from last weekend‘s estimate of $133.6 million), Tony Stark’s take is expected to be well north of brave and oh-so-gritty Sir Robin.

We two have two cannily counter-programmed PG-rated films aimed at girls and women coming out. “Letters to Juliet” features the very-much up-and-coming Amanda Seyfried, living legend Vanessa Redgrave, and some guys. Its reviews are south of “Robin Hood” — but not as much as you’d think, especially considering that there seems to be some confusion about whether or not it’s a comedy. The Box Office Mojo theater count informs us that it’s booked into 2,968 theaters and should earn between somewhere between about $14 and $18 million or so, based on what Frankel and DiOrio have guessed. This one has “female guilty pleasure” written on it to some degree, so it could do reasonably well for Summit Entertainment, given that it benefits from a reasonable $30 million budget. (Though even that figure sounds high to me for this kind of a movie.)

“Just Wright” from Fox Searchlight might feature a sports backdrop and a somewhat more unconventional female romantic lead in the extremely talented Queen Latifah, working opposite rapper/actor Common and another living legend, Pam Grier. At heart, however, the film strikes in very similar territory in terms of genre, if not in terms of ethnicity and setting, to “Letters to Juliet” right down to it’s mother-daughter-day friendly PG rating.  It’s also only in 1,831 theaters as compared to over 3,500 for “Robin Hood” and nearly 4,400 for “Iron Man 2.” It’s expected to earn something approaching $10 million.

For as much as Marvel utilizes him in their animated films, you’d think that the Hulk was the company’s flagship character. “Planet Hulk” marks the fifth appearance of the Not So Jolly Green Giant (including all three Avengers films and last year’s double feature, “Hulk Vs.”), and quite frankly, it’s starting to get a bit out of hand. While the Hulk deserves his share of the spotlight just as much as the next Marvel superhero, the decision to follow up one Hulk-centric feature with another only risks alienating those who aren’t fans of his comics. Based on the miniseries of the same name, the story begins with the Hulk awakening to discover that he’s been shipped to an uninhabited planet by the Illuminati after being deemed too dangerous for Earth. When Hulk causes the shuttle to malfunction and crash land on the planet of Sakaar, however, he’s forced to partake in the gladiatorial games by the planet’s leader, the Red King.

What follows is essentially “Gladiator” lite, with the Hulk teaming up with his fellow contestants to overthrow the Red King and earn their freedom. The problem with this formula is that the Hulk isn’t exactly leading man material, and although the writers try to remedy that by giving him more to say than just “Hulk smash!,” it feels terribly out of character. The story itself is plagued with flashbacks for supporting characters that draw attention away from the titular hero, while the action scenes are fairly bland when compared to the far superior “Hulk Vs.” Fans of the Hulk will still enjoy seeing one of Marvel’s most recent mini-events come to life, but next time around, they’d be better off choosing a bigger crossover event that appeals to a larger audience like “Civil War” or “Secret Invasion.”

Click to buy “Planet Hulk”