It’s even further below the  numbers that were being bandied about by writers, if not, studios, earlier on. I mentioned last time that Carl DiOrio thought the film could hit $100 million, but failed to note the breakdown at the Numbers. It said that while “analysts” (whoever they may be) were suggesting a $90-$95 million opening, the studio was pimping a more modest $80 million while trying to diminish expectations. They should have diminished them a little bit more.

The week’s other major opener, “MacGruber,” proved my hunches to be at least as wrong as DiOrio’s. While steering clear to some extent of the $15-20 million guess at the Numbers, I doubted the single-digit numbers that DiOrio mentioned. As the singer of the obscure Difford and Tilbrook tune says, let’s face it, I’m wrong again. As it turns out, even DiOrio’s lowest figures weren’t low enough. The incompetent MacGyver-like bomb diffuser only earned a fairly pathetic $4.1 million in 2,551 theaters for the #6 spot. I think it’s safe to say that the poor reputation of SNL-derived films clearly preceded this one, which actually has garnered reviews that are a bit better than most other films in this long-running franchise.

Still, considering that most SNL sketches, even at their best, never seem to sustain until the end of the bit, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the movies derived from them have a hard time holding attention through feature-length running times. If “MacGruber” suffered from a bit of movie guilt-by-association, it’s just too bad for anyone who was hoping for a quick A-list status for the off-kilter Will Forte — a performer who I think would fit in really nicely in a David Lynch movie. (I mean that as a compliment, I think.) On the other hand, every time I check Rotten Tomatoes, even it’s now-meh-to-bad (once kind of okay and maybe even almost good) critical numbers keep dropping, with “Top Critics” being a bit more brutal.

The #2 and #3 spots, respectively, were held by “Iron Man 2” with an estimate of $26.6 million for Marvel and Paramount, and “Robin Hood” with $18.7 million estimated for long suffering Universal. Probably helped by weak competition, both movies managed to keep their weekly drop to just under 50%. Still, I think it’s safe to call the $200 million “Robin Hood” a disappointment that won’t do much for the careers of either Russell Crowe or Ridley Scott, not that they’re in any danger of obscurity just yet.

A paucity of movies for women of any age probably also helped grow some legs for the #4 cross-generational rom-com, “Letters to Juliet,” which dropped only by 32.8% and earned a solid $9.1 million for the probably fairly modestly budgeted film. That should help young Amanda Seyfried cement her growing credibility as a box office draw, at least for young-female-skewing films and even if her most challenging film role so far has been ignored. Of course, that lack of female-friendly major draws will change next week with the arrival of “Sex and the City 2.”

On the limited release circuit, it was actually a pretty good weekend for Jesse Eisenberg and the talented young actor’s efforts to prove he’s something other than a Jewish knock-off of Michael Cera. His high-concept drama with mixed reviews, “Holy Rollers,” performed fairly strongly in its opening weekend on three screens with a solid per screen average of $13,003 from an audience that probably discussed after the film whether the drama about a drug-running Hasid was good or bad for the Jews. Doing even better was the all-star comedy, “Solitary Man,” top-lined by Michael Douglas and Danny DeVito (let’s not talk about how long it’s been since “Romancing the Stone” and ‘The War of the Roses”),” and also featuring mid twenty-something Eisenberg. On the strength of strong reviews and the cast, it managed an estimated $22,250 on four screens. As usual, Peter Knegt at Indiewire has the details.

Seeing as we have two action movies in contention this week, I’ll cut to the chase. Marvel and Paramount’s “Iron Man 2,” as was universally expected back before the weekend started, easily held on to its #1 spot at the box office. Ir scored a weekend estimate of $53 million that nevertheless included a somewhat higher than average drop of over 58%, indicating that the movie, as I imagined, isn’t quite wowing filmgoers the way the first movie in the franchise did.

This week’s big debut, “Robin Hood” has generally received a decidedly mixed reaction from, as far as I can tell, everyone who sees. It came in slightly below expectations at an estimate of roughly $37.1 million for Universal. (Earlier, the box office gurus were talking about figures in the range of $40-50 million.) Nevertheless, though the reaction be “meh,” not all the news for brave Sir Robin is mediocre. Indeed, THR this morning trumpeted a take of $74 million from just under 6,944 screens across the globe, making it the world’s #1 movie.

It’s been a long, long time since my stint in an International Sales wing of a smallish film company, but it appears that, then as now, the combination of a really well-known star like Russell Crowe, action, and a strong (at least in theory) storyline remains the formula for success in non-English-speaking territories. I’m sure this news is music to the ears of the suits of recently bad luck/bad decision prone Universal.

(By the way, my primary source for all of these numbers this week is, in fact, The Numbers. My usual resource for this information, Box Office Mojo was beset by some kind of serious site issue earlier today. I’m happy to see they have the problem fixed now.)

Of the week’s lower profile new releases, both nominal romantic comedies directly targeted both in terms of gender and, I suppose, ethnicity. “Letters to Juliet” is the more Anglo-Saxon of the two films aimed squarely at the female audience and stars the talented and generationally diverse but definitely Anglo-Saxon pair of Amanda Seyfried and Vanessa Redgrave. As with this week’s other films, it came in slightly below the figures that were being bandied about previously with an estimate of $13.75 million. “Just Wright,” on the other hand stars Queen Latifah, Common, and Pam Grier and — in a world where de facto segregation still exists to some degree in our movie houses — is theoretically aimed at a mostly African-American audience. It earned an estimated $8.5 million for Fox Searchlight but actually beat the Seyfried rom-com in terms of per-screen averages by a hair — $9.00 per screen to be precise — since it was in over a thousand fewer screens.

The family trade remained reliable this week. The #5 film was “How to Train Your Dragon” with an estimated $5.12 million, which continues to have  legs seven weeks into its run.

On the limited release front, I’ll once again refer you to the fine coverage being offered by Peter Knegt over at Indiewire. I’ll simply note that I’m happy to see a good turn-out for the debut of the latest from English master-filmmaker Ken Loach, whose developed an interesting pattern at times of of shifting from slice-of-life comedies and dramas to politically engaged action dramas. I’m also delighted to see no mention of a particular German horror film I’ve been refusing to mention simply because — well, I don’t even want to talk about it. Maybe now I’ll finally have some luck in un-thinking the premise. May screenings of it, whatever it is, remain empty and far, far away from me.

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.

Moreover, Nikki Finke is reporting that the film has already earned $132 million from 53 assorted countries where it has already opened. The summer solstice is more than six weeks away, but summer-time film madness is, we are informed, very much upon us. (Just btw, Anthony D’Alessandro offers a brief historical look at the outward creep of the summer movie season over the last couple of decades.)

So, the question remains, just how many millions will the second film about billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) fetch. Will it beat the record $158.4 million opening of “The Dark Knight” and crack $160 mill? Or, will it get a mere $140 million or so and send everyone to the immensely well appointed and hugely relative poor house? That seems to be the floor being offered up by the various gurus, including Ben Fritz of the L.A. Times‘ Company Town blog and THR’s jolly Carl DiOrio, who characteristically seems to be leaning slightly towards the possibility of a huge opening for Marvel and Paramount.

Nevertheless, there is a small dark cloud here and that’s the general perception, at least among us press types — who are, I remind you again, people too — that “Iron Man 2” is, while not at all bad, also not as good as the first one. This is a rare case where I’ve actually seen the week’s big movie in advance myself and, quality wise, I’m seeing this one as a glass-half-empty. For me, the story simply fails to find a strong emotional connection between Tony Stark’s troubles and the various threats he’s facing. It all feels a bit vague and disconnected despite director Jon Favreau’s way with humor, mostly good acting, and some very decent action scenes.

Indeed, while the film’s current 68% “fresh” rating at Rotten Tomatoes is not at all bad, especially for an action flick, it’s a fairly precipitous drop from the outstanding 93% rating the first film garnered. It rating among “top critics” is an even more disappointing 61%. Taking a closer look, there’s a muted quality and less of a difference between the thumbs-up and thumbs-down reviews than you might think. Our own Jason Zingale (linked to above) might have liked the film better than me, but reading his review, it’s a matter of emphasis and personal quirk.

For example. I, and also CHUD-meister Devin Faraci, missed Terrence Howard, who was replaced on this film by the Don Cheadle, an actor who is at least as strong a performer as Howard is over all, but one with very different qualities. For some of us, he just doesn’t come across quite as strongly as James “Rhodey” Rhodes.  As Faraci puts it:

…he’s just slightly too straight and stolid and good to be fully believable as Tony’s best friend. Terence Howard has taken a ride on the Stark jet to Tijuana while Don Cheadle politely begs out of such an expedition.

Jason, on the other hand, didn’t miss Howard at all, but these are all fairly minor matters. This is a movie that no one really hates and no one I know of yet really adores and that’s why I think it makes some sense to look at reviews in a box office context for a movie that is most certainly as review proof as they get. I think most audience members will like it, but I doubt many will see it multiple times. My own prediction is that a huge opening weekend will mainly mean a big drop-off later on. A more muted opening weekend will likely be a bit more leggy as the film skates by on its fairly modest, but very real, assets. I’ll be surprised if generates the kind of love a critical and popular smash like “The Dark Knight” or “Avatar” gets. Either way, though, we’re looking at a very nice pay day, just maybe not the uber-mammoth one some excitable folks are talking about.

One factor that may mean a slightly smaller opening weekend is that this Sunday, lest any of you forget, is Mother’s Day. Sure, there are some geek-friendly moms out there, but I really wonder how many would actively choose “Iron Man 2” as the movie they’d choose to see on their special day. That, I’m sure, is the logic behind releasing “Babies” this weekend. I mean, what could possibly be more motherly? Not quite a wide release, it’s going into 534 theaters and apparently the cute factor here is, as the title might lead you to believe, simply off the charts. Still, all I need to do is go to YouTube and enter “cute babies and adorable little kitty cats” and I get that factor pretty much for free, but then, I’m not a mom. Similarly, the well-reviewed “Mother and Child” is another themed release. The latest from indie-mainstay director Rodrigo Garcia, this all-star drama features Anette Benning, Naomi Watts, and Kerry Washington and will be showing up in six theaters in NYC and L.A., according to the Numbers.

In another interesting bit of counterprogramming, Summit Entertainment, will be sneaking the romantic drama “Letters to Juliet,” starring up-and-coming it-girl Amanda Seyfried and acting great Vanessa Redgrave, in over 880 theaters on Sunday. It’s a clever way to get around the giant road-block that is “Iron Man 2” to try to milk some shekels out of the Mom’s Day tradition of trying to make up for whatever we did wrong the rest of the year by doing whatever mom wants.

There is actually too much action for me to detail among smaller releases this week. A certain horror film I still refuse to even name is expanding into 17 theaters, and I do want to mention yet another sequel — but not just any sequel. “OSS 117: Lost in Rio” is opening in three theaters, two here in Cali and one up in NYC, and those of us who saw the clever French spy spoof  “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies” know what the scoop is there, especially the genius of star Jean Dujardin. It’s one part Inspector Clouseau by way of Maxwell Smart and Steven Martin, one part the French spy equivalent of “Black Dynamite.” (For more, my equally spy-loving friend, Randy Reynaldo, wrote about “Cairo, Nest of Spies” a couple of years back.)

Finally, opening in nine theaters in New York, Los Angeles, and, for obvious reasons, Washington D.C., is “Casino Jack and the United States of Money” from Oscar-winning super-documentarian Alex Gibney (“Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” and “Taxi to the Dark Side“). I was slightly disappointed with this detailed look at lobbyists gone wild, given Gibney’s other political films, though there’s plenty to recommend it. However, critics in general seem quite taken and it’s an important and very timely topic. If mom is a political junkie and doesn’t mind being told her entire government is for sale to the highest bidder, you could do a lot worse.