Listen to the article
In a near-future Los Angeles where crime is escalating, Amazon MGM Studios’ latest sci-fi thriller “Mercy” presents a dystopian vision that fails to deliver on its provocative premise. Starring Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson, the film attempts to explore the intersection of justice and artificial intelligence but stumbles in its execution.
The film portrays a future where the American government has responded to rising crime rates by creating “red zones” that segregate the poor and those with addiction issues from the general population. More controversially, authorities have established the Mercy Capital Court, an AI-driven judicial system that gives defendants just 90 minutes to prove their innocence or face immediate execution if their guilt probability exceeds 92%.
This premise raises immediate constitutional questions that the film conveniently sidesteps. Basic rights like the presumption of innocence, access to legal representation, and protection from cruel punishment appear to have been discarded without explanation, asking viewers to simply accept this dramatic shift in jurisprudence.
The narrative focuses on LAPD detective Chris Raven (Pratt), who becomes the 19th defendant to face the Mercy Capital Court after being accused of murdering his wife. What follows is essentially a 90-minute interrogation where Raven communicates with his AI judge (Ferguson) while reviewing digital evidence including phone calls, emails, and data records—all while remaining statically seated throughout most of the film.
Director Timur Bekmambetov, known for producing the critically panned “War of the Worlds” (2025), employs a similar screens-within-screens filming technique that restricts the visual storytelling. This approach creates a claustrophobic viewing experience that quickly grows tiresome rather than tense.
Character development proves to be one of the film’s major shortcomings. Raven is introduced as a sympathetic figure wrongfully accused, only for later revelations to expose him as an alcoholic with a history of domestic violence—making it difficult for audiences to invest in his plight. Similarly, Ferguson’s AI judge character suffers from inconsistent writing, inexplicably oscillating between strict protocol adherence and actively assisting Raven, without clear motivation for these shifts.
The worldbuilding elements further undermine the film’s credibility. While most aspects of this future society appear virtually identical to our present—from architecture to personal technology—the LAPD inexplicably utilizes clunky hoverbikes that seem more appropriate for a video game than a serious sci-fi thriller. These vehicles appear repeatedly throughout the film, suggesting a misplaced production focus on this single futuristic element.
Perhaps most disappointing is the film’s resolution. Rather than offering thoughtful commentary on the dangers of automated justice or AI’s limitations in understanding human complexity, “Mercy” delivers a simplistic conclusion that humans and AI are equally fallible. This feels particularly tone-deaf given the current real-world concerns about AI’s impact on creative industries and social systems.
The film’s release in 2026 arrives at a time when generative AI is causing significant disruption across multiple sectors, making its uncritical portrayal of automated justice systems all the more problematic. Rather than engaging meaningfully with these issues, “Mercy” presents a superficial treatment that wastes its timely premise.
For viewers, the most merciful aspect may be the on-screen countdown timer, constantly reminding audiences exactly how much longer they must endure before the credits roll. With limited action, static cinematography, and underdeveloped characters, the film earns its disappointing 2/10 rating.
Those interested in thoughtful explorations of AI, justice, and future societies would be better served looking elsewhere in today’s rich landscape of science fiction offerings.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
This film sounds very concerning in its portrayal of an unjust, AI-driven justice system that tramples on basic rights. I’m curious to see how the filmmakers handle these complex ethical issues around technology, due process, and the role of the state.
It’s an interesting premise, but I agree it needs to be handled carefully to avoid promoting authoritarian ideas under the guise of entertainment. Looking forward to seeing if the film explores those constitutional concerns in a nuanced way.
Wow, an AI-driven judicial system with a 92% guilt threshold for execution? That’s a terrifying prospect and a clear violation of human rights. I’m curious to see if the film explores the ethical and practical implications of such a system in a meaningful way.
Exactly, that level of automation and lack of due process is deeply troubling. The film has its work cut out for it to make that premise work in a way that doesn’t come across as pure propaganda.
This sounds like a fascinating if unsettling exploration of the intersection of AI, justice, and civil liberties. I’ll be curious to see how the filmmakers handle the complex ethical questions it raises around due process, bias, and the role of technology in law enforcement.
Agreed, it’s a timely and concerning topic. I hope the film at least prompts thoughtful discussion, even if the execution falls short. These are important issues to grapple with as AI systems become more integrated into critical public institutions.
This film sounds like it’s tackling some really heavy, important issues around the role of AI in the justice system. I’m curious to see how the filmmakers balance the dramatic, dystopian premise with a nuanced exploration of the ethical concerns it raises.
Agreed, it’s a complex topic that deserves careful handling. I hope the film at least prompts thoughtful discussion, even if the final product falls short in some ways.
Hmm, a 92% guilt probability threshold for execution is extremely concerning and seems like a blatant violation of human rights. I hope the film at least acknowledges the troubling implications of such a system, even if it doesn’t fully resolve them.
You’re right, that threshold is alarmingly high and gives no room for error or appeal. The film has a lot of heavy lifting to do to justify such a dystopian premise in a compelling way.
The premise of an AI-driven judicial system with a 92% guilt threshold for execution is truly chilling. I’ll be interested to see if the film grapples with the constitutional and moral implications of such a system in a substantive way, or if it ultimately feels more like propaganda.
Absolutely, that’s an incredibly high bar that seems to completely disregard fundamental human rights. It will be telling to see if the film acknowledges those concerns or glosses over them in service of a more sensationalized narrative.