Quick Synopsis: In a supposedly dystopian future, police officer Chris is on trial for the murder of his wife. He has to prove his innocence to an AI judge in 90 minutes, or he’ll be executed.

Thoughts Going In: This movie is going to be terrible. I’ve not seen a trailer for it; it was dumped in January, and it’s already rumoured to be a surefire bomb.

Films can be bad for different reasons. Sometimes it’s someone involved in it who is just not good at their job, sometimes it’s studio interference, and sometimes it’s just bad timing, and it’s released near something that’s clearly superior. Then you have films like Mercy, films which are so peculiar and flawed that it almost feels like a deliberate attempt to fail. I’m not too big a fan of Chris Pratt as a performer; he’s a good side character, but as the lead, his flaws are exposed, and you realise he is essentially playing the exact same character in every film. He’s not helped by the decision to have him spend most of the film locked in a room, tied to a chair and talking to a computer. You may think my problem would be the “locked in a room” or “talking to a computer” part. I have no issue with that. A guy trying to solve a crime while not being able to physically interact with anything is interesting. My problem is the “tied to a chair” part. If you do that with someone, you need them to have immense screen presence; you don’t need them to have the energy of someone who has just been asked to file a report at work 5 minutes before he’s due to leave. His being tied to a chair means there’s very little to praise in terms of visual dynamics. It’s him talking to a screen, yes, we see things on the screens, but the focus is still on a guy locked in a room ,whilst tied to a chair. He’s not allowed to pace around the room, break things in rage, hold his head in his hands; it essentially robs him of using body language. I’m not sure what the benefit of having him tied to the chair is. Could they not think of another execution method other than “sonic blast to the head”? Could they have not had the room itself kill them with a soundblast? If you want to lean into the computer aspect, have the room change into a 3D reconstruction of the crime scene, and then he can walk through that, have him haunted by the sights, cry at family mementos etc.

In terms of performance; Kali Reis continues to impress. It’s a shame that her performance in Catch The Fair One didn’t lead to the roles she deserves, but I hope if she continues to prove herself, those roles will come. Rebecca Ferguson is a definite highlight, Despite seeming for all intents and purposes, human, there’s something uncanny valley in her performance. Part of that is down to how her character is written. On the subject of characters, Chris is kind of an idiot. He knows he only has a short period of time to prove his innocence, he knows the system will investigate his history, yet he still lies to it. It would have been so much shorter if he admitted things straight up; if he told the system he was an alcoholic who relapsed. Yes, lying to the cops because you don’t trust them is a strategy. But when you’re a cop who’s trying to tell everyone this new AI judge is brilliant, you’d trust it.

A key thing to successful sci-fi is world-building. You need the universe created within to make sense and feel true. Obviously, this is the key to all movies, but sci-fi has it harder because it usually has to introduce its rules first. So how does Mercy fare? Not well. It cuts to occasional riots, but this never really feels like a futuristic LA with a huge crime problem; mainly because they’ve segretated most of the problem people into one area (the ethics of which are NEVER discussed). Outside of that, there doesn’t seem to be much day-to-day crime. The use of hover bikes is a nice touch, though. But they wouldn’t be needed if he was allowed to examine a VR version of the scene himself.

Every time I think of this movie, a new issue I had with the plot rears its head, which is strange as I’ve barely thought of it; I saw it, immediately forgot it until it came time to write this review. It doesn’t bring anything new or exciting to the table. The concept is full of possibilities. Possibilities which the film itself refuses to look at. The problem with AI deciding court cases is one of nuance and human nature; it’s not “if it’s controlled by the wrong people, it may go wrong”, it’s the system itself that is flawed. But Mercy has no interest in discussing that. It also isn’t interested in exploring the guilt he could (should) feel for being responsible for the execution of an innocent man. There’s no “The system I defend executed somebody when it shouldn’t have? Oh no, I caused this!” PTSD, which forces the film to discuss the ethics of this justice. It’s just “this guy died because of me? Ah well. Oooo, is that a sandwich?” Side note: When we see riots in this movie, the police tend to just leave them alone instead of teargassing them. And no children get shot in the face at point-blank range. So in some ways, the “dystopia” America in this movie’s 2029 is less traumatic than actual America in reality’s 2026

This could be great. It could be slick. It could be smart. It’s none of those things. It’s not even passable.