Hey, couch jumping is a lot harder than it looks: "Mission: Impossible III"

You may recall reading something about me wanting to see this movie without putting money in Tom Cruise's pocket. I don't want to get into specifics, but let's just say the box office receipts for "Akeelah and the Bee" will be a little high related to people who actually saw the movie.

(That movie won out over "Ice Age: The Meltdown" and something called "Hoot." I figured "Ice Age" didn't need any more money, but that nobody else would be watching "Hoot," making my absence more noticeable. That left "Akeelah," which I didn't want to see but figured was a nice enough story to deserve financial support. Certainly more than that nutjob Cruise.)

With my conscience clear, I was able to fully enjoy "M:I III," which is perfectly fine big-screen entertainment. Sure, this series always has its share of holes, and the latest installment is no exception. Our story has Cruise trying for domestic life -- he's engaged to a hot woman more than a decade younger than him -- but dragged back into secret-agent duty when one of his former trainees gets captured in Germany. That sets off a rescue mission, followed by two globe-hopping pursuits -- first of the bad guy (Philip Seymour Hoffman), then of Cruise's woman, who is kidnapped by the aforementioned bad guy. We go from Berlin to Rome to Washington to Shanghai, with stuff blowing up and flying through the air all along the way.

Looking back, I'd say I liked the first "Mission: Impossible" more than a lot of people and was as disappointed as anyone in "M:I 2." (What's with going from normal numbers in "2" to Roman numerals in "III," anyway?) The first movie (by Brian De Palma) was briskly-paced and had lots of nice twists. The second (by John Woo) was sillier and relied on style, with a bunch of slow-mos and white doves flying everywhere. Also, Cruise's long hair looked stupid.

"M:I III" is closer to, maybe even as good as, the first one. The attempt to humanize Ethan Hunt isn't bad, although it starts to fall apart midway through and is impossible to swallow at the end. I kept waiting for everyone to shift into "True Lies" mode, i.e. "Honey, you're a secret agent? I thought you had a boring government job!" Still, nice try.

I also liked Hoffman as the villain. He does a great job looking bored and amused at Hunt, which plays to Hoffman's general presence. Going for menace and flamboyance would have been a mistake. Other pluses include some pretty decent action shots, especially on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and a couple of good twists. Even though the story centers on finding some nebulous doomsday device, it was written well enough to keep me interested and reveal some genuine surprises.

The writer and director here is J.J. Abrams, creator of "Lost," "Felicity" and -- most relevant -- "Alias." Indeed, there's a definite "Alias" look here, and the whole "agents-having-a-personal-life" angle was been beaten to death in that series. "M:I III" also could have done without so many handheld camera shots and closeups. Maybe Abrams will learn to use the whole screen beyond outdoors action shots in future movies.

For a big-screen directing debut, though, Abrams does all right. Having a solid cast helps, especially Laurence "Don't call me Larry" Fishburne and Billy Crudup as Cruise's bosses. And returning from the first two movies is Ving Rhames, who must be happy this series is still going strong. Seriously, has he done anything lately other than that "Kojak" series that nobody watched? Where have you gone, Marcellus Wallace? Maybe he should pay a young actress to marry him and jump a few couches of his own.