There’s a clever idea in the new sci-fi thriller MERCY. The story takes place in the not-too-distant future where A.I. takes over our justice system via a system entitled Mercy that culls together all the facts of a case via computer files, close circuit video surveillance, timelines, bank records, phone records, and any other data that can either free someone arrested for a crime or slam the prison door shut on them forever. Heck, it can even save the state money by instantly killing the defendant in the chair they’re strapped to if one is found guilty of a capital crime. Justice is swift and brutal here as it eliminates drawn-out calendars, plea deals, or even appeals. More of a brazen new world than a brave one.
But of course, as necessary in such a thriller, the A.I. system required to be perfect and just is far from it. Ultimately, it will take some good, old-fashioned (read: cliched) human ingenuity to make up for the bugs in this new system. And in the story at hand, the handy human who will steer things right is one “aw shucks” detective Chris Raven (Chris Pratt). He’s on trial for the murder of his wife which occurred merely a day earlier. And, as first presented to us, he may be a drunken lout, bellowing his innocence, but soon he will gather his wits and down-home appeal to prove to the cool, implacable AI judge (in the comely persona of Rebecca Ferguson), that he’s a good egg.
There’s an obvious lesson that the movie could’ve run with – that A.I., like any computer programming, is only as good as the people programming it – but that thought doesn’t seem to have occurred to screenwriter Marco van Belle and director Timur Bekmambetov who seem content merely to mock technology. Their film suggests that a beleaguered society is all in on this radical experiment in law enforcement, without alternate counterpoints, and that any fault of the computer lies in its inability to match the experience level of a seasoned detective. Thus, Raven starts running rings around the Mercy system’s A.I. circuitry with his instincts for right and wrong despite where the evidence appears to point.
What makes this movie even more frustrating are the myriad of cliches and plot holes glaringly evident in its thinly-conceived mystery. To present A.I. as merely lacking rigor is lazy. Trotting out dumb red herrings doesn’t make a story smarter. And casting name actors in insignificant roles points to them as the culprits to be named later in the third act. Perhaps the filmmakers should’ve run the script through their own A.I. program to find such shortcomings, but then again A.I. still has major problems getting the right amount of digits onto a hand correct when illustrating online so I doubt it could help make a two-dimensional character into a fully-conceived one in this weakscript.
To add insult to injury, the film overshoots every scene and over-edits it too. It feels like it’s all super-caffeinated to keep the viewer from noticing the obvious problems. Pratt and Ferguson do what they can with their static roles, and some revelations are amusing in places like the bad guy who hides out in a home’s basement after a party for a day and a half. Was he able to go to the bathroom during that time without being detected? Did A.I. track that kind of personal data?
The truest sense of mercy here is that the film is only 100 minutes long. Perhaps it was edited to ensure another showing at the local cineplex to earn more money that way. Now that would demonstrate some real thinking on behalf of some entity, human or otherwise.
