“A Few Good Men” meets “The General’s Daughter” meets “The Presidio,” with splashes of “Swordfish” and “Predator” and a whole lotta rain.

That’s as basic as a description of “Basic” can get.

Visually appealing and well acted, this film still can’t escape its obvious flaw: It’s too damn complicated.

This is not to say that movies should be simple, or that complicated movies can’t be good. It’s just that “Basic” grows so self-satisfied at its own cleverness that it becomes absurd.

Director John McTiernan is the veteran of very good action movies, from “Predator” to “Die Hard” to “The Hunt for Red October” (not to mention crappy ones like “Last Action Hero” and “Rollerball.”) As an action film, there is little to criticize about “Basic.” It is dark, violent and well paced.

But as it tries to make itself a compelling mystery, it collapses on itself in a string of excessive coincidences, deceptive omissions and malodorous red herrings.

Writer James Vanderbilt is to blame, trying to paint a colorful résumé with one over-the-top script. If he had known when to say when, a good film might have been salvaged.

Danish-born Connie Nielsen (“One Hour Photo”) convincingly portrays an American military investigator whose authority over the investigation of a group of soldiers missing from a training mission is superceded by the appointment of a non-com, plays-by-his-own-rules DEA agent — played by John Travolta (“Pulp Fiction”) — to the case.

Nielsen does well to underplay the green-but-competent young officer. Travolta is entertaining, but his character is not distinct from other recent roles he’s taken, notably that of the over-confident criminal mastermind in “Swordfish.”

The best aspect of the script is that it does not dwell on the potential love story between the two leads. Surprising, really, that it should avoid one more source of complication.

As the two investigate the soldiers’ disappearance and interview the two survivors of the mission, the only thing that is made clear is that neither they nor the audience are going to know the whole truth until the end of the movie.

In the meantime, we are given dubious flashbacks, incomplete conversations and subtle and not-so-subtle hints as to where the increasingly convoluted plot may be headed.

There are so many liberties taken with reason and reality that, by the end of the film, each twist and revelation just evokes bigger laughs from the insulted audience. In theory, we are supposed to become so befuddled by obfuscation that we’ll believe it’s all over our heads. Maybe if we go and see it again, or buy the DVD when it comes out, the twisted details will all make sense.

But they won’t. They will only seem more ridiculous.

We are expected to believe too many coincidences. When every scene sets up a surprise, an audience can’t possibly continue to be surprised. We simply ask, “I wonder what the next surprise will be?” or, eventually, say “Oh, I see the next surprise coming.” This is not indicative of good storytelling.

Samuel L. Jackson (“Shaft”) and Giovanni Ribisi (“Heaven”) also give decent performances, but all the good acting in the world can’t make the unbelievable believable. Hopefully John McTiernan will look for a better script before wasting his talents again.

Grade: C