The question is, is Indiana Jones finally back? In the nineteen years following "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," has time made the intrepid Dr. Jones irrelevant?

Short answer: yes and no.

First, the good news. With regard to the character of Indiana Jones, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" showcases a return to form for its star, Harrison Ford.

After years of humorless slumming in movies like "Random Hearts" and "Firewall," Ford delivers another sly star turn. They say familiarity breeds contempt, but his obvious affinity for the role of Indiana Jones engages Ford in a way he hasn't been since "The Fugitive." This isn't Oscar-worthy work, but it's not supposed to be. Despite his age, Indiana Jones is the same guy he was in "Last Crusade," and Ford's knowing sideways glances and off-the-cuff sarcasm make that fact the flick's chief pleasure.

The downside is that "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is an Indy movie unworthy of its star. It's not a bad movie. I want to stress that. Until the last 10 minutes, it's a fun diversion -- the flick's overstuffed with moldering tombs, vehicular mayhem, double-and-triple crosses and CGI creepy-crawlies.

In essence, it's the best "Mummy" movie ever made. Were this an actual installment in that Brendan Fraser series, I'd think it the best flick in that franchise, and I'd be decently satisfied.

But it isn't a "Mummy" movie. It's an "Indiana Jones" movie directed by Steven Spielberg. That's supposed to be tops of the pops, and instead it feels like "Crystal Skull" is copying the moves of all the "Mummy" and "National Treasure" type flicks that have gotten successful copying "Indiana Jones." The experience is akin to watching a snake eat itself.

And the problem with those movies, the same problem that extends to this one, is a lack of inspiration. A lot happens all the time, but there's no heart, no real wit. It's just freneticism for freneticism's sake. Regardless of all the thrills this new "Indy" adventure throws at us, and there are many, they become have no real impact because they're not rooted in human emotion, just ungainly piled on top of one another.

David Koepp's "script" is hardly a model of formal construction; word is he cannibalized elements from earlier drafts (by writers such as Jeb Stuart, Jeff Nathanson, and the great Frank Darabont) to assemble his Frankenstein's monster of a screenplay, and it shows. It's violently episodic and missing vital connective tissue (I'm still a little unclear as to how Indy goes from being blacklisted to an admittedly very cool chase scene through his campus grounds), and that human element takes a backseat to action and endless exposition.

As good as he is, Ford often feels like a guest in his own house. He spends the last twenty minutes watching things happen rather than participating in them. It's a far cry from the active hero we saw in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" through "Last Crusade," and disheartening to boot -- why spend the time resurrecting a beloved character and then give him so little to do?

But he's not the only one affected. While Shia LaBeouf is good as Indy's new sidekick/potential son Mutt, his relationship with Indy adds nothing to the proceedings. Contrast that with the father/son dynamic in "Last Crusade." Not only was it a showcase for the wonderful, prickly chemistry between Sean Connery and Ford, but it also enriched and deepened our knowledge of Indiana Jones as a character. LaBeouf's sole function, however, is just to be introduced as a successor to the Jones throne in future movies -- his impact on both plot and character is negligible.

Cate Blanchett is a riot as the Russian baddie of the piece, with her overcooked accent and severe black bob, but I wanted more of her. All she did was chase after Indy, and that would be more acceptable if Blanchett wasn't so interesting and funny to watch. Same goes for Jim Broadbent and Ray Winstone -- why cast two of the best actors on the planet and then give them almost nothing to do?

And poor Karen Allen. Her Marion Ravenwood is still the best of the Indy flames -- funny, sassy, tough -- but she too has almost no significance in the scheme of things (noticing a trend here?). She spends the entirety of her screentime with a huge grin plastered on her face, regardless of its appropriateness to the situation. I can't blame her; if I'd been tapped after 27 years to star in a Steven Spielberg movie, I'd be positively giddy myself. But that doesn't excuse tone-deaf acting.

Her inclusion feels like a concession made to Indy nostalgia, but it's not explained -- we're supposed to just be happy she's there. A lot of this movie works the same way: references to Indy's father and to his old mentor Marcus, a quick shot of the Ark of the Covenant, and even a couple of winks to the old "Young Indiana Jones" TV show.

For a geek like myself, these were cool, but for those people new to the series, I worry most of these asides will leave them scratching their heads. Given their relative unimportance to plot/character, I think they could've been excised for clarity's sake.

These little winks at previous Indy adventures are indicative of the flick's biggest problem -- it's all same old, same old. Everything in it is a rehash of something from one of the previous three flicks, be it thematic (father and son reunited again) or otherwise (man-eating ants filling the "menacing creature" slot this time). Part of the fun of Indy's previous adventures was seeing this iconic character placed in different perilous situations. Here, his troubles are depressingly familiar.

And as much as it pains me to admit, Steven Spielberg has to take the blame. I think Spielberg is the best filmmaker working today. His successes are legendary, and even his failures are intriguing (and often heads-and-tails better than the best from lesser directors).

I don't think there's anything wrong with a director of his caliber breaking from serious work (a la "Munich" or "Saving Private Ryan") to direct something light and inconsequential and fun. Spielberg did that with "The Lost World," and you could tell he was having a ball making that. Not all movies have to "matter."

But you have to "care," no matter what the project is, and that's the issue here: I don't think Spielberg cared about this movie. It's the least engaged he’s ever seemed. That's the only explanation for his lax pacing, tired atmosphere (all the locales look fake, and not in a good way), and indulging of material he must have known was subpar.

I mean, the last 10 minutes of this one are the worst bit of film Spielberg's ever committed to celluloid! It turns an agreeable (albeit useless) movie into a borderline bad one. Without spoiling much, let's just say this flick is both an "Indiana Jones" sequel and a prequel to an earlier Spielberg classic, and it's the most misguided Spielberg has ever been in his career.

I've got a theory on why Spielberg didn't care. I think he's lost his confidence making these movies. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a masterpiece, unquestionably. It's a perfect movie. With the follow-up, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," Spielberg tried something a little different, going darker and weirder and more violent than he'd ever been in his career. It's a flawed movie, but "Temple of Doom" is still a lot of fun, and Spielberg deserves credit for trying to branch out.

Except people hated the tone, and by the time "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" rolled around, Spielberg was so worried about upsetting audiences that his heart just wasn't in it anymore. That's why the first hour of that one feels so uninspired -- he got timid. Nevertheless, he used Connery and his dynamic with Indy to connect with the material, and from Henry Jones Sr.'s introduction on to the finale, the movie is much more entertaining and amusing. Connery, in a sense, got him to care.

Well, this one is "Last Crusade" without Sean Connery. It has no hook for Spielberg, and, unfortunately, not as strong a hook for us. It's not bad until the very end -- there's some legitimately terrific stuff here, from the silly yet exciting opening 20 minutes, to a hysterical scene reinforcing Indy's paralyzing fear of snakes, to the bravura chase through the jungle at the midpoint.

But that's dwarfed by the ending and the irritating non-sequitors (CGI prairie dogs and a monkey army. I kid you not) and, most unfortunately, by a pervading sense of irrelevance from the parties in charge. Let's face it; if the filmmakers can't be moved to care about their product, why should we?

Josh Katz is a freelance movie reviewer. He's been a movie fan since birth (much to the chagrin of his friends and family), and his top three favorite flicks are "Goodfellas," "Do the Right Thing," and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre."