The new film Mercy, starring Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson, is a near future sci-fi story about a Los Angeles AI system that acts as judge, jury, and executioner for those found guilty. The idea of that kind of AI use is deeply unsettling and borders on techno-horror. It also raises questions about whether a system like this could ever be justified and if it could ever be trusted with this kind of responsibility. Regardless of the movie’s quality, the whole point of this movie is designed to make you think about how AI can and should work in contrast to how it would likely work without safeguards.

Is Mercy a cautionary tale? Or is it just a story that preys upon our AI fears for entertainment purposes? I think this movie raises a lot of important questions, but the big questions for me were 1) does the story actually holds together within the film and 2) does the AI technology feel realistic or is it just another ~hand-wavy~ sci-fi flick about a possible AI future.

This movie is going to catch heat and people are either going to love it or hate it because the topic of AI is polarizing. So, what we need to figure out is if Mercy is worth your time and money before you get to the theater.

You can read the review below or watch the video review on YouTube:

Mercy begins with a voice-over that provides the history of the creation of the Mercy Court and the desperate conditions within Los Angeles County that inspired its creation. Officer Chris Raven (played by Chris Pratt) wakes up strapped to a chair and has no memory of how he ended up in the automated criminal trial system designed for murder defendants. Once the trial starts, Chris has 90 minutes to prove that he didn’t kill his wife. (It kind of sounds like a game show. The only thing the film is missing is televising the trial process!)

While he has the assistance of the AI entity called Judge Maddox (played by Rebecca Ferguson), who helps him access files, video feeds, and phone calls to build his case and reduce his probability of guilt, his ability to drive the investigation relies on his own professional skill as a police officer who is intimately aware of the law. His practical experience paired with his gut instincts becomes essential in navigating the legalities of the case, exposing the flaws in the Mercy Court, and raising questions about the fairness of the system he himself helped to empower.

That’s the basic set up for the story that kicks the action into gear.

First Impressions
Before I dig into the review we have to talk about that opening voice-over, which gives some useful background but has two major problems. First, it feels like it was produced by one of those low-budget office training video companies that your employer makes you watch once a year as part of your annual review. Second, it feels like local commentary from someone who lives or works in Los Angeles and who is so tired of seeing their city turned into a seething, roiling pit of homelessness and crime with no hope of solving the problem. That is how they introduce the movie and no matter how good and engaging the story is from this point forward, it’s almost impossible to get that early taste of the film out of your mind in order to enjoy the rest of the movie. It was as truly unfortunate way to open the film.

In addition to their choice of opening, this film gave itself some big obstacles to overcome, which push the story’s high points even further down the list of things that stood out. I am not entirely sure why they felt the need to strap the defendants into a chair in such a way that they could only control the investigation through voice commands. (Granted, voice commands are a realistic depiction of how we will be communicating with AI systems regularly now and in the future, but watching it on screen slows down the action.) So, not only does Chris Raven have to calm down, he also has to figure out how how to conduct the investigation through voice commands – which he often has to explain and justify to the AI. The set up is frustrating since it would have added natural drama to have Chris Pratt acting with his full body rather than just his face and voice due to the fact that he is literally strapped into a chair for most of the film. I get that they wanted the imagery of the “electric chair” to drive home the visual reminder that the AI is also the executioner, but the room could easily be rigged to be a gas chamber or something like that, which would have had just as horrific of a visual.

Most of the drama comes from conversations with Judge Maddox and from how Chris navigates the digital reconstructions, timelines, and probability assessments rather than through physical action. That limitation is also part of the point of the film. It hamstrings Chris’s investigation, making it impossible for him to conduct the investigation in a normal way that would have allowed him the time and flexibility to pursue leads and follow hunches that could turn up information that isn’t data in the AI’s system. Instead, as a defendant, Chris is completely at the mercy of a system designed to be all-seeing and all-knowing, and it’s only because of Chris’ vast experience in law enforcement that he is able to identify and compensate for the limitations of the AI. That kind of makes you wonder what hope the other defendants had in proving their innocence before being found guilty, and all of them were found guilty … which means all of them were executed. The setup really reinforces the core idea that this AI is not only flawed but that it also holds absolute power.

The AI and the Technology
What surprised me most about this film is how well Mercy used the idea and capabilities of AI and modern technology. It genuinely felt like a human who understood the kinds of AI that we have today as well as the AI that will be available in the future was the one who wrote this script because this film understands the underlying mechanics of AI technology, agents, orchestration, avatars, and how quantum technology would be needed to power this type of multi-faceted AI system.

Judge Maddox, the AI system at the center of the film, feels disturbingly plausible with its instantaneous access to citywide surveillance, personal data, and private information paired with its own behavioral modeling and use of predictive analytics. None of these capabilities feel fictional on their own. What makes the system frightening is how the story unifies them into a single entity that has the decision-making power over the life and death of a human.

The only major AI capability missing here is embodied AI (which is an AI’s ability to physically move through a real-world environment), but there were at least hints at this … even if it wasn’t made explicit in the story.

What Mercy does particularly well is show the limits of AI through a set of physical circumstances that constrain Chris Raven’s ability to defend himself. It isn’t until we (i.e. the audience) see the unfair constraints on Chris that the AI starts to question those restraints and finally recognize that there are areas of the investigation that it has has no visibility into that can reduce the probability of guilt. Judge Maddox comes to understand that it doesn’t have intuition and it can’t follow hunches like a human. It can only look at the available data, calculate the guilt or innocence of a person. Worse, the human navigating the system really only has access to the data that the AI has already evaluated, and most defendants don’t know who to uncover new leads to generate new data.

That, in a nutshell, is the point of this film. We see how the very rules of the system make it nearly impossible to prove one’s innocence without the aid of an expert human with skills that can navigate through the real-world holes within the Mercy Court’s available data. This is a cautionary tale designed to educate the general public on why AI can’t do a job on its own and why AI needs a human to assist in the process to come to the best possible result. It feels a bit like AI propaganda with a strong AI+Human message as the moral of the story, which isn’t surprising since it was produced by Amazon MGM, one of the world’s most powerful AI technology companies.

Investigation and Narrative Tension
There is nothing revolutionary about the story and we have seen aspects of it before in a variety of different films that use AI as a narrative tool. What’s different here is how well the AI technology is conceptualized and executed. Mercy plays like a classic whodunit filtered through a techno-thriller lens. You may think you know who the real killer is before the film confirms it, but the narrative will do its best to challenge your assumptions to keep you guessing. It does feel a little set up. However, when you realize that the key information (which triggers the cascade of new clues and data that the AI hasn’t previously considered) came from human experiences and family practices that the AI couldn’t have possibly known and weren’t part of the AI’s dataset, the Mercy Court’s rigidity suddenly becomes its greatest weakness. This is the core conflict that generates the conflict and tension in the film, and it’s what ultimately creates the action within the story.

Performances and Direction
Chris Pratt delivers a solid performance here. It’s not a standout role, but he gets the job done in a workmanlike way that doesn’t embrace his natural talent for comedy and comedic moments within an action-driven role. While he was fine, I think an actor with more range and nuance would have done better within the confined physical space created by being strapped into a chair.

The most compelling character in the film was Judge Maddox, played by Rebecca Ferguson. Then again, Rebecca Ferguson could play a cardboard box, and she’d find a way to make it compelling. She’s just that good at what she does. She finds the perfect mix of “distant AI avatar” and thoughtful “by the rules judge” and she finds a way to make Judge Maddox sympathetic. Its sympathetic nature comes out when it goes into learning mode, allowing the AI to finally comprehend how much data it misses from “off the grid” insights that only exist within the human experience. It’s actually a really well-done moment of reflection and realization when both Judge Maddox and Chris realize the system’s flaws and the parts they each played in the conviction (and deaths) of the defendants who all sat in the chair before him.

Recommendation
So, is Mercy ticket-worthy? Honestly, maybe? I really liked parts of this film, and I enjoyed how they built a realistic futuristic AI that actually behaved in a logical way. However, so much of the mystery was predictable because the film put its energy into creating a complex human+AI story and not into a complex whodunnit. So, if you really love tech focused stories that take a look at the future, I think you’ll really like this film since it takes a straightforward look into near future science fiction that feels absolutely possible and plausible.

However, if you don’t like AI and if you are not into crime thrillers that are driven by technology, this probably isn’t the film for you. Or maybe it’s the kind of film that you would rather wait to watch at home on streaming. One other nice thing about Mercy is that it has a decent runtime, which enhances the action. I really appreciate that Mercy knows it’s not going to win an Academy Award, so it just decides to have some fun with the story. I really also appreciate that Mercy does not preach. It does not tell you what to think or how to feel about AI, but it does leave you sitting with uncomfortable questions about trust, justice, and AI.

So, what about you? What do you think about Mercy? Have you seen it? Are you planning to? What do you think about AI? I would love to know.

If you enjoyed this review, please give it a like and subscribe for more. You can also visit my YouTube channel at @ErinUnderwood for more videos.