A Husband & Wife Review 'Mercy' (2026)

A dialogue between Liz & Chris Foeckler on the Chris Pratt thriller

One of the best things about a truly good movie is the great conversation that it can elicit. So when I have the experience of not only watching a well done movie, but of also having interesting conversation afterwards, that is definitely a win-win. If that movie watching and conversation also happens to be with my super-awesome husband, that is a win-win-win. Chris (said husband) and I have always been great at having extremely lengthy conversations, but since both of us are involved in theatre in our “spare time” (between the two of us, we have directed almost 30 shows, a film project, and two audio dramas— when we aren’t conquering mountains of laundry, dishes, or wrangling half-a-dozen children), we especially love talking about theatre, acting, storytelling, and good art. Below is a back and forth we shared after recently stealing the opportunity to sit down and watch “Mercy,” released by Amazon Prime/MGM earlier this year. We focused primarily on storytelling, acting, and the themes in the film.

- Liz Foeckler

Liz: So, let’s start with storytelling. The basic premise is that LAPD detective Chris Raven (Chris Pratt) is accused of murdering his wife, is on trial at the “Mercy Court” before an advanced AI judge “Maddox” (Rebecca Ferguson), and has 90 minutes to prove his innocence, or be executed as soon as the time runs out. For me this was already an intriguing start because I am a fan of suspense/mystery stories. Given the “screen life” format, I was a little worried that it might start to feel stale quickly, but between the story, the actors, and the creative ways in which the “evidence” was presented, the movie flowed well, and never drifted into routine.

Chris: Agreed. The choice to focus a story on a protagonist who is completely restrained is bold. “Man in chair talks to computer” does not immediately sound like a gripping premise. There’s a reason for calling them “mov-ies.” For my money, though, this movie is a refreshing illustration of the fundamental truth that freedom is not defined by a lack of restrictions, but the ability to act well even within them.

Liz: Another concern I had with this format was efficiency and management of characters, but I was very impressed with the way everything tied up nicely— there weren’t any wasted characters, which I find to be particularly edifying in a mystery movie.

Chris: Yeah, I was impressed how efficiently the film established its frame, characters, and conflict while at the same time inviting the audience into the story. As we come to learn, Raven (Pratt) has been instrumental in establishing the “Mercy Court,” so he, unlike the audience, would not ordinarily need an explanation of his circumstances. As the story starts, however, he is disoriented from just coming out of an alcohol-induced blackout. Thus, Maddox is able to explain his situation without falling into mere ‘exposition dumping.’

Liz: And because Raven has access to all the information at the disposal of the AI (cell phone records, emails, social media, traffic cameras, etc.), in a way it reminded me of the 2008 film “Vantage Point,” which goes through an assassination attempt from the view of several different witnesses (another fun watch!). While “Mercy” doesn’t employ the Rashomon style structure, because of the nature of the case, there is a somewhat similar feel. Without spoiling anything, I was pleasantly surprised by some of the twists that they worked into the story.

Chris: Right, in this way, the film also immediately established the life-or-death stakes, the ticking clock (the 90 minute countdown continues throughout the film, which is itself only about an hour and a half), and the plot framework. Thus, within a few moments, the audience has the what, the why, and the how necessary to understand and appreciate what is about to unfold. Very efficient work, indeed!

Liz - So, I’ve always been a fan of Chris Pratt’s acting. I find him convincing and enjoyable to watch, even if some of his past roles could be considered a bit outlandish. He plays the “Everyman” very well, and this film is no exception. His portrayal of a man with a real problem, real life and real struggles is done deftly and his subtlety at various moments is truly impressive— it comes across as very genuine.

Chris: It seems to me that Chris Pratt in recent years has become like the “high fructose corn syrup” of Hollywood: he’s in everything, from headlining the MCU to dark Amazon projects like “Terminal List”; and he’s often thrown into a project to “sweeten the pot” for those who are just looking for a pleasant way to fill their time, like “Super Mario Bros.” But in this film he demonstrates a subtlety and range of emotion that was hardly conceivable when popular awareness only knew him as Andy Dwyer. The restrictions on storytelling put restrictions on acting options, but Chris Pratt delivered excellently.

Rebecca Ferguson as the AI Judge Maddox

Liz: While I don’t think I’d put Rebecca Ferguson at the top of my list for preferred actresses, she acted the role of “Judge Maddox,” extremely well. While subtlety might not be the first thing one thinks of when contemplating the portrayal of an interactive AI judge, the amount of small, micro-expressions that lent themselves to an “artificial” feeling were very well placed, and very convincing.

Chris: Absolutely. In today’s suddenly AI-soaked world, and with concerns rising over computers replacing humans, the choice of casting a human to play an AI is picking a side. Rebecca Ferguson’s performance strikes a delicate balance between the cold, mechanical calculation and the lifelike, user-friendly avatar. She is an excellent rational “interface,” clearly counterbalancing Pratt’s emotional, sometimes unstable performance as Raven. And the contrast between these two performances drives much of the scenes of this film, strikes to the heart of its drama, and is central in the unfolding of a central theme in the plot (spoilers!).

Liz: To say that this film touched on some hot button issues puts it rather mildly. AI is the obvious one, but there are several others that are extremely relevant to what culture today is facing. The fact that the film takes place only a handful of years in the future actually makes a lot of these factors have that much more tension; the idea that this form of “justice” seems somewhat plausible given technological advancements in the last few years makes the story that much more compelling and engaging. The film does a good job of combining elements of technology that are real and frequently used by the presumed audience with other elements that could be real in the not too distant future. The integration feels natural, in an appropriately offputting way. That, combined with the current skepticism and threat of AI (there, I said it) and growing concerns about privacy, makes for a movie with compelling stakes for the modern viewer. And those are just some of the themes at play.

Chris: Every film is in some way a product of its time. This is a film made in and for the 2020s. While it doesn’t exactly break new ground on any of the issues it incorporates into its plot, I never felt that it became too preachy on hot-button issues. Dangers of AI are essential to the frame of the film, let alone to the plot. The person on trial is a detective, so it feels natural that the film explores the possibilities and perceptions of police corruption and brutality. One of the main ways in which the “Mercy Court” is able to gather information for the case is through social media. Maddox’s access to the internet would have Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox flipping tables. The impact of social media on young people, even in families that exercise diligence in this area is a natural part of the story.

But the core of the themes is the topical tension between man and machine: between what humans bring to society that is or is not replaceable by AI and how AI can make things better (or worse). Of course, this is a common trope of sci-fi and is very much the topic of the day. In order for Raven to prove his innocence, he must make use of Maddox’s powerful AI tools. In order for Maddox to determine Raven’s guilt or innocence, she/it must learn about what it means to be human.

Liz: And ultimately, I think that is a reflection everyone could benefit from right now– what does it mean to be human, and how can we do more of those things? I’d say consuming, making, and discussing good art is a great place to start– so grab a friend, watch this movie, and dive into a discussion of just one of the things that makes humans unique.