Hollywood just released what might be its most dangerously tone-deaf film in years.
Director Timur Bekmambetov’s “Mercy” doesn’t just miss the mark on artificial intelligence—it actively celebrates a dystopian nightmare.
Starring Chris Pratt as a detective fighting for his life against an AI execution system, the film reads less like cautionary sci-fi and more like corporate propaganda for our surveillance future.
And critics aren’t holding back their disgust.
Death by Algorithm: The Premise
Set in near-future Los Angeles, “Mercy” imagines a city drowning in crime, homelessness, and a catastrophic meth epidemic. Hollywood Boulevard has become tent city.
The LAPD’s solution? An AI-driven justice system called Mercy that expedites conviction and execution of criminals.
Here’s how it works: suspects get strapped into a chair inside a massive AI chamber. A virtual judge named Maddox, played by Rebecca Ferguson, gives them 90 minutes to prove their innocence. If guilt probability remains above 96% when time expires, Mercy kills them on the spot.
Chris Pratt’s character, Detective Chris Raven, wakes up in this nightmare machine accused of murdering his wife. Racing against the clock, he must dig through surveillance footage, phone records, and spy drone data to find the real killer.
What Should Have Been vs. What We Got
On paper, “Mercy” sounds like it could deliver biting social commentary in the vein of Paul Verhoeven’s “RoboCop”—a violent satire about privatized policing and corporate greed.
Instead, it does the opposite.
Critics argue the film reads like propaganda created by the very corporations it should be criticizing. Produced by Amazon, “Mercy” presents AI as an inevitable, natural tool that just needs better human training.
The film’s message? We should learn to accept and even befriend our corporate-owned execution bots.
Visual Tedium Meets Dangerous Ideas
Bekmambetov attempts to make surveillance exciting by surrounding Pratt with floating holographic screens showing camera footage and data—shot in 3-D IMAX, no less.
But strip away the effects, and you’re watching a man make phone calls while strapped to a chair for 90 minutes.
The director previously produced the 2025 “War of the Worlds,” which unfolded entirely through laptop windows. “Mercy” essentially repeats that approach with fancier graphics.
The Film’s Most Disturbing Message
What truly alarms critics isn’t the visual boredom—it’s the film’s ideological stance on AI and surveillance.
By the film’s end, Detective Raven and the AI judge Maddox have become friends.
Human or A.I., we all make mistakes.
That’s Raven’s actual line—equating human error with algorithmic execution decisions.
Rather than championing human instinct, ethics, and the irreplaceable value of human judgment in matters of life and death, “Mercy” argues we should teach AI to think like us. Even when that AI has been programmed to execute citizens without remorse.
Privacy? What Privacy?
The film’s treatment of personal privacy might be even more troubling than its AI apologetics.
In “Mercy’s” world, citizens are legally required to link their phones to a police surveillance network. Ring doorbell cameras, personal videos, private calls—everything flows directly to law enforcement.
The Mercy system extrapolates holodeck-like 3-D crime scenes from this data, letting Raven virtually enter and explore people’s private moments.
The Fourth Amendment apparently doesn’t exist in this future. And the film never treats this as dystopian—it presents mass surveillance as cool and heroic.
Celebrating Surveillance
Raven never seriously objects to Mercy accessing his personal videos, including private marital fights and secret drinking sessions.
When he discovers his wife may have had an affair, he immediately dispatches LAPD officers to pursue her suspected lover—a Black chef working downtown.
Critics note the uncomfortable optics of watching police chase and detain an innocent Black man while audiences are supposed to cheer these efforts.
Corporate Interests at the Wheel
Amazon’s production involvement casts a long shadow over “Mercy.” The company manufactures Ring doorbell cameras and Alexa devices—products that have raised significant privacy concerns.
Amazon has also invested heavily in AI development and maintains controversial relationships with law enforcement through programs like Ring’s police partnerships.
A film that normalizes total surveillance and friendly AI executioners, produced by a corporation with vested interests in both technologies, raises obvious questions about artistic independence versus corporate messaging.
What Critics Want You to Know
Reviewers aren’t just panning “Mercy” for being boring—they’re sounding alarms about its ideological implications.
Key criticisms include:
- Normalizing AI in life-or-death decisions without meaningful ethical scrutiny
- Celebrating mass surveillance as heroic rather than dystopian
- Dismissing privacy rights as obstacles to justice
- Promoting uncritical cooperation with algorithmic authority
- Treating corporate technology as inevitable and beneficial
One reviewer bluntly summarized: “Everything is gross and backward in ‘Mercy.'”
January Release, Limited Impact?
“Mercy” arrives in theaters this January—historically a dumping ground for films studios have little confidence in.
Critics take some comfort in predicting minimal audience turnout for what they’re calling propaganda disguised as science fiction.
But the film’s existence—and the corporate interests behind it—signal something worth paying attention to. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into policing, criminal justice, and surveillance systems, the stories we tell about these technologies matter.
Films that uncritically celebrate algorithmic authority and total surveillance don’t just entertain—they shape public perception of what’s normal, acceptable, and inevitable.
“Mercy” wants audiences to love AI, worship law enforcement, and abandon privacy concerns. Whether audiences accept that message or reject it could say a lot about where we’re headed as a society.