photo courtesy of ThisIsEngineering on pexels.com
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Released Jan.23, 2026, “Mercy” is a science-fiction action thriller that places artificial intelligence at the center of the justice system poses a controversial question: Can an AI judge be more trustworthy than human judgment?
While the film succeeds as an engaging and immersive thriller, its final message raises concerns about whether the film ultimately encourages audiences to sympathize with artificial intelligence more than it should.
Set in a dystopian Los Angeles in 2029, the story follows Detective Chris Raven (Chris Pratt), who must prove his innocence in the murder of his wife during a 90-minute trial overseen by an AI judge named Judge Maddox. The real-time structure keeps the tension high and the film’s writing is one of its strongest elements. The dialogue and pacing guide the audience’s thoughts deliberately, often steering viewers toward trusting the logic and calm demeanor of the AI over the emotional instability of the humans involved.
From a technical standpoint, in my opinion, “Mercy” excels. Watching the film at AMC Chantilly 13 in Big D format heightened my immersive experience, making the sound design and visuals feel intense and immediate. The sound effects, in particular, amplified the urgency of the countdown, which pulled viewers deeper into Raven’s race against the clock. The writing kept the plot tight and engaging, earning the film an 11 out of 10 for me.
However, the film did appear to suggest that AI may be better suited as a judge because it focuses on strictly facts instead of emotion. And if I’m being honest, that didn’t sit well with me because what happens when evidence is planted or manipulated, just like what happened in the movie. So, the question is what happens when AI can only evaluate the information that is given and not analyze the intentions behind it? That creates an issue and in such cases, the truth can only be revealed through spiritual discernment through God rather than logic alone.
The film’s closing moments created questions and concerns. Especially when Raven tells the AI judge, “It’s okay, we all make mistakes. We both need to learn from it.” And that line implied that humans and artificial intelligence exist on the same level, which isn’t true. The framing of that particular line suggests growth, learning and even redemption for AI. Which is wrong because AI does not possess a spirit, conscience or the ability to receive guidance from God.
One moviegoer, Army Sergeant La’Selle Brown, said he initially felt conflicted about the film’s idea of AI becoming a judge because,” I don’t like the idea of AI taking on natural human judgement because it’s a machine and it doesn’t have a spirit.” Brown added, “ Although I know real-life AI would not act exactly as it does in the film, the ending made it seem as though the AI experienced something similar to spiritual unction, which is only reserved for humans. So, the film portrays AI as going beyond its programming to “do the right thing”, blurring the line between machine logic and spiritual discernment.
Another viewer, AUm senior Jennifer Tolbert, liked the film’s engagement and twist but she didn’t like the film’s final message. “ I really liked this movie but the very end bothered me,” Tolbert said. “I thought the message was going to be that AI is not human and can’t understand human nuance or gray areas.” Tolbert explained that the final line comparing humans and AI making mistakes changed her whole idea of what she thought the message was going to be. Despite the change of thought, Jennifer rated the film an 8 out of 10 because the storyline kept her engaged.
Ultimately, “Mercy” was well written, which succeeded in keeping audiences engaged. Yet, I do think the movie used an agenda-setting approach for us to get used to AI and although they didn’t tell the viewer what to think. I do believe everything that was presented could cause a person to lean towards the idea of AI becoming involved in our justice system. This framing aligns with a 2025 Forbes article written by Lars Daniel, titled “AI Judges Follow the Law, Human Judges Follow Their Hearts,” which showed that human judges are often influenced by emotional factors that have no legal relevance, and AI wasn’t influenced. Daniel reinforces the same idea that “Mercy” had, which was where AI didn’t depend on emotional factors but facts. Overall, the movie was good but there’s an underlying message beyond its storyline.
