Grade: D+ | Search for plot keywords of director Antoine Fuqua’s films on IMDB and you’ll get these: “shot-in-the-chest,” “shot-to-death,” “helicopter,” “machine gun,” “attempted rape,” “betrayal,” “blood splatter” and “death.”

In so many words, that is Fuqua’s “Shooter.” Add a shirtless Mark Wahlberg (fresh off an Academy Award nomination) and a conspiracy plot so blindly leftist that it will make even the most blood-thirsty Democrat squirm in his chair, and you’ve got a blockbuster action movie.

Yet “Shooter” strives to be more. Immature critiques of government corruption and improbable philosophical rants kill suspense and isolate audiences looking for nothing more than good action.

“Shooter” follows the well-named ex-marine Bob Lee Swagger through a conspiracy plot pinning Swagger as the suspect in a failed presidential assassination, making him the subject of a national manhunt.

Like a stark Captain America, Swagger combats injustice, fighting dirty politicians who cackle among themselves about how evil they are while sipping brandy and a Danny-Glover-as-lisping-Dirty-Harry, Colonel Isaac Johnson. Glover’s character has no end of classic villain catchphrases. Things such as, “I win, you lose, again,” and,”This is about to get worse,” were said with such gravity that the theater audience laughed out loud.

Some viewers may recognize plotline similarities between “Shooter” and “Prison Break,” previous seasons of “24,” or half the action movies from the 1970’s. Frankly, one could argue the others are done better.

The problem in “Shooter” stems from its unreconciled goals as both an action film and a thoughtful conspiracy film. I’m willing to sustain belief for a good shoot-em-up, but when there are so many elaborate explanations, bold stereotypes and oversimplified battles between good and evil, I disengage.

What was intended to be a thinking person’s “Rambo” throwback quickly lost its transcendent credibility in each scene.

If there is a Russian in a wheelchair, he must be evil. If a woman touches Wahlberg’s chest, she will be in his control. If there is a helicopter, it will go down. Every bullet misses the main characters, and injustice can be corrected through the barrel of a gun.

It may be bold for an action film to strive to be more. But, to transcend mediocrity, one needs to steer clear of stereotyped characters, overused plotlines and hopeless appeals to emotional political activists.

The movie could just as well have been the splicing together of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and “Scarface.”