This film is doing good business. I attribute that to all the hype generated prior to it’s release. It can’t possibly be the film. And I say this, after nodding off to sleep a couple of times during it. Between “Indiana Jones” and “National Treasure 2” (which I watched on DVD during the same weekend) it’s been too much of a bad thing.

Indy reappears on the screen after a gap of 19 years – too long, some would say – but let’s give the (old) man a fair chance. We have him going off on another one of his spur-of-the-moment adventures, jauntily doffing his hat, smiling that lopsided smile, this time to Peru, because really that country seems a perfect hunting ground for skulls and finding exotic looking tribal natives. Thick, uncut forests increase the appeal of the locale. The objective is to find Professor Oxley (John Hurt) who’s on a hunt which involves crystal skulls and the “City of Gold”.

Accompanying Indy are a varied group of people. To start with there’s a young guy called Mutt (Shia LeBeouf) and then his Mum drops in (Karen Allen). They then find Professor Oxley as well as the bad guys – who else but the KGB itself ? Cate Blanchett plays Irina Spalko, who along with her Soviet comrades is on a hunt for the crystal skull as well.

There’s no accounting for tastes of course, but this feels a little jaded. Oh, and when before have I heard the “City of Gold” theme ? Hmm…, not so long ago actually; National Treasure 2 had the same thing going on. Hidden levers, large stone entrances which close and open mysteriously on large gears, make rumbling sounds, water flooding, endless treasure which you’d be a fool to take (guess what happens to the greedy ?) you name it, and we have the clichéd thingy already. Been there done that. Why do it again ?

And where’s the excitement ? What’s making me getting me out of my seat yelling “Go, Indy” ? Nothing, really. I sat pretty quietly though-out the film, except the parts in which I dozed. This film does not work at the very basic level. It might have all the elements of an action-adventure-drama, but lacks the most important ingredient of all – the excitement, the zest, the nail-biting thrill that’d keep me on the edge of my seat, rooting for Indy.

“Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull” (IJATKOTCS) is a throw-back to the 80s (it’s set in 1957). In some parts of the film I could detect an aging affect. The clothes and the makeup is old-style. The forgotten KGB is back again. The internet is a thing of the future, and technology ? Unheard of. We are back to the basics.

Except the basics don’t work anymore. Not when we have contenders like “The Bourne Ultimatum” and the “Die Hard 4.0”. This Indy installment is very down-to-earth, they use their hands, fists, guns and tanks. Un-sophistication is it’s middle name. The stunts are very, very average. You might not guess that technology existed. Speilberg and Co. might want to go all purist on me, and not use techno-gizmos for the stunts, but that also means I’d rather go with Bourne.

“IJATKOTCS” is hyped up as the next big adventure, but in parts this feels like a kiddie film. I’m OK with goofy – I draw the line at stupid. Granted that Jones is pretty goofy and fairly awkward (that’s his character really), but in this film, sequences seem a little too contrived to draw out those laughs. It’s inspired slapstick, and while I cringed, my kids laughed at the silliness.

Yes, anything goes in this film. I’m all for theatrical liberties; after all many were taken in the previous Indy installments. But however many genial allowances I might make for a film, I do make distinctions between “fuzzy” and “retarded”. One stoops . . . to conquer. And Indy stoops all right, ( at 65, I bet his arthritic knees don’t quake), but he does not conquer.

It’s time, Indy, to hang up that fedora.