Mercy (2026)

​“Mercy” stars Chris Pratt, Rebecca Ferguson, Annabelle Wallis, Kali Reis, Rafi Gavron, Chris Sullivan, Kenneth Choi, Kylie Rogers, and Jeff Pierre.  Released on January 23, 2026, the film follows a detective as he seeks to prove his innocence to an AI judge.

The film is directed by Timur Bekmambetov, who also directed films such as “The Arena”, “Night Watch”, “Wanted”, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”, and “Profile”.  It’s no secret that everyone, and I do mean everyone, is against artificial intelligence, regardless of how it’s utilized.  Sure, it helps us accomplish most of our mundane tasks in a matter of seconds, but, like all technology, AI is prone to making mistakes in its functionality.  Personally, all I’m concerned about is how people are using it as a permanent replacement for human creativity rather than as an assistive tool, whether for writing essays, drawing art, or whatever.  But why stop there?  Let’s add the justice system to the list of things AI could do and see how that would turn out.  While that idea hasn’t come to fruition just yet, we do have an action thriller that shows what that future would look like if artificial intelligence served as judge, jury, and executioner.  Spoiler alert: it didn’t turn out so well, at least for Chris Pratt.  But is this piece of pro-AI cinema functional enough to pass as popcorn entertainment, or should it find itself guilty of supporting the most infamous piece of technology in history?  Let’s find out.

The story follows Detective Chris Raven (Pratt), an LAPD officer in the near future, where the city's crime rate is on the rise.  That all changed with the creation of an advanced justice system known as the “Mercy” program, in which convicted criminals have 90 minutes to prove their innocence to an AI judge, Maddox (Ferguson), before they are executed.  Chris was one of the few who championed the system for reducing crime.  That is, until he, too, becomes the victim of the AI system, as Chris finds himself on trial for murdering his wife, Nicole (Wallis).  He now has 90 minutes to prove his innocence to Maddox before the judge’s final decision, utilizing various footage of the day of Nicole’s murder to track down the real killer.

As I said before, I’m not the type of person who supports AI because of how flawed its functions and prompts can be.  However, I couldn’t help but feel that we’re in a position where people just treat it as the plague, regardless of how it’s used.  Fortunately, that hasn’t stalled my interest in “Mercy”, which explores artificial intelligence being used for criminal justice.  On the other hand, its director, Timur Bekmambetov, hasn’t been known for cinematic quality, at least from a couple of films I’ve seen.  “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” was an enjoyable yet generic horror film featuring the president battling vampires, and the “Ben-Hur” remake in 2016 was just…there for some reason.  Regarding Bekmambetov’s work on American cinema, 2008’s “Wanted” was the only one to gain decent acclaim from critics and audiences.  Sadly, his latest film couldn't replicate the Angelina Jolie-led thriller’s success, with its less-than-pleasing reviews signaling another missed opportunity for Pratt outside his IP franchises like Marvel and Super Mario.  

But is it really as bad as the flawed AI in real life?  That’s the question I sought to answer by experiencing Chris Pratt spending 90 minutes in the electric chair myself.  After careful consideration, my verdict is that it’s not entirely awful in terms of the experience it sought to create.  “Mercy” is another single-location thriller in which the protagonist uses everything at their disposal to escape a life-or-death scenario, including their brain.  It’s limited in its scope and storytelling, but it was utilized to evoke the suspense of deciphering the puzzle or, in this case, proving one’s innocence to an AI judge inside a single room.  With its combination of the “screenlife” gimmick and traditional filmmaking, the movie presented the idea of placing its audience in the chair themselves to solve the crime and survive the trial.  On the other hand, it’s also another throwaway “protagonist is falsely accused” action thriller that’s enjoyable for its thrills and nothing else.

The evidence in this case points to Marco van Belle’s screenplay, which suggests a deeper thematic resonance within its programming.  However, it has a few bugs in its system to make the premise work for everybody, including me.  “Mercy” is somewhat akin to a dollar-store “Minority Report” in its futuristic tech for the justice system.  The only difference between this and the Steven Spielberg sci-fi thriller is that “Mercy” has audiences stuck in one room playing a “whodunit” game with Chris Pratt for 100 minutes.  In addition to its reflection on the justice system, the film also depicts artificial intelligence and its use to provide a fairer, safer approach to reducing crime.  What these two elements have in common is that they’re both flawed in their functioning.  Obviously, AI is the true crime of making several mistakes despite its efficiency, but the justice system can also make mistakes depending on how it’s manipulated.  But the film wanted to ensure that AI is depicted as good despite its flaws, which might not bode well for most of the biggest AI detractors.  

However, I wouldn’t call its portrayal of AI the script's main problem.  My mindset is on the narrative itself, which obviously follows the usual “clear someone’s name” structure.  Aside from its presentation and twists, “Mercy” doesn’t really offer much in its narrative to set it apart from other similar movies.  Along with its mediocre dialogue and some questionable plot points, Marco van Belle’s script may have drawn inspiration from films like “Minority Report”, but it lacks the innovation and emotional gut punch to clear the writer's name of this cinematic crime.  If you’re going into this film expecting a thematically deep exploration of AI and the justice system, you’ll easily find this one guilty of lacking such substance.  It’s straightforward, limited, and occasionally far-fetched.  Fortunately for me, it has enough evidence to prove itself as a fine watch for those seeking solid thrills.

As I stated earlier, the film’s presentation combines the “screenlife” gimmick seen in movies like “Searching” with traditional filmmaking.  Timur Bekmambetov has been pioneering the “screenlife” filmmaking technique, like how Chris Pratt’s character champions the “Mercy” program, having worked on films like “Unfriended”, “Searching”, and “Profile”.  So, it’s easy to spot some similarities in the film’s approach.  While the combination is far from revolutionary, Bekmambetov used it in a respectable manner to deliver the necessary thrills of watching the action unfold, particularly in its crazy yet tense third act.  Regarding the “screenlife” approach, I still think “Searching” handled this gimmick better because it was also used as an effective storytelling tool.  However, I would say that “Mercy” is another piece of evidence that highlights Bekmambetov’s fascination with this format.  Even the visuals for the gimmick were passable for its holographic screens and action, though some looked a bit iffy.  Thankfully, they’re not as bad as the ones from the recent “War of the Worlds” adaptation last year, which Bekmambetov also produced, believe it or not.  So, in a way, the film is his way of apologizing for his involvement in that cinematic blunder.

As for the film’s cast, the main attractions carrying the story are Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson.  While the supporting characters appear in the footage, the main leads are front and center, driving the film’s thrilling moments through their performances.  Chris Pratt is the kind of actor whose usual schtick can be enjoyable under the right circumstances.  But in some cases, he does attempt to inject serious drama into his performances, and his role as Chris Raven is no exception.  Even though it’s not the best performance I’ve seen from Pratt, he does show that he can act beyond playing the typical generous or “cool” hero.  Raven is perceived as an officer whose trauma affected his marriage and even his temper, and is used against him amid his quest for redemption. This characteristic was suitably displayed by Pratt’s performance, further indicating the actor's status as an action star.  Rebecca Ferguson also makes for a convincing AI in her performance as Judge Maddox, a computerized judge presiding over the trial.  She acts in a way any AI person would, which, in context, helps inject some tension into her chemistry with Pratt.  If that program were to become a reality, I actually wouldn’t mind having someone like Maddox as my judge.  Kylie Rogers and Kali Reis also delivered commendable performances as Britt, Chris’s daughter, and Jacqueline Diallo, Chris’s partner, respectively, although the scene involving the latter character was understandably one twist too much.

Overall, “Mercy” is guilty of not taking full advantage of its AI themes, but it offers clear evidence of being a straightforward yet watchable thriller that’s far from a crime against cinema.  Its single-location approach and “screenlife” gimmick have enough merit to complement its murder-mystery aspect, especially its thrilling yet far-fetched finale, with Timur Bekmambetov leading the trial with a passable level of confidence.  However, this direction can only take it so far when its screenplay doesn’t elevate beyond what we usually see in other similar films.  It’s a competent thrill ride that mostly succeeds in delivering what the premise suggests, and that is Chris Pratt sitting on the chair for 90 minutes solving a murder case.  But those seeking a thematically grounded thriller that combines storytelling with cinematic innovation may find themselves accusing it of being another disposable January film.  Pratt and Ferguson are compelling in their roles, along with some passable visuals, but the film’s subpar screenplay and its handling of themes and tropes aren’t enough to bring it to the right side of the law.  It’s a fine enough watch for those seeking more “screenlife” thrills.  However, I don’t see it being remembered as we head down to the rest of the year.

C