Mercy Review: Chris Pratt's AI Sci-Fi Thriller Explained [2025]

Introduction: When AI Screenwriting Becomes a Cautionary Tale

There's a particular kind of frustration that comes when you sit down to watch a film that feels like it was assembled by someone who understood the individual pieces of storytelling but somehow missed how they're supposed to fit together. That's the core experience of watching Mercy, the new sci-fi thriller starring Chris Pratt that premiered in 2024.

The film positions itself as a cutting-edge exploration of artificial intelligence, computational threats, and the intersection between human decision-making and algorithmic precision. On paper, this should resonate. AI technology has become culturally inescapable, and there's legitimate hunger for smart, thoughtful science fiction that grapples with these themes seriously. But Mercy doesn't quite manage that balance. Instead, it wobbles between ambitious concept and chaotic execution in ways that make you genuinely wonder if an AI language model might have produced a more coherent script.

Chris Pratt plays Jake Kelly, an armchair detective obsessed with solving cold cases through internet research and conspiracy-adjacent theorizing. The setup alone carries promise. Amateur sleuths fascinate audiences because they represent the democratization of investigation, the idea that truth can be uncovered by anyone willing to dig. But Mercy takes this concept and extends it into territories that feel less like character exploration and more like narrative padding.

What makes this film worth examining isn't just what it fails to do. It's what its failures reveal about contemporary blockbuster filmmaking, the pressure to incorporate trending tech concepts, and the challenge of balancing spectacle with storytelling substance. This review dissects the film's narrative architecture, explores its thematic ambitions, evaluates its technical execution, and ultimately considers what Mercy tells us about AI-adjacent storytelling in mainstream cinema.

TL; DR

• Narrative Structure Issues: Mercy suffers from plot inconsistencies and pacing problems that undermine its central premise about AI and investigation
• Chris Pratt's Performance: Pratt brings his typical charm but can't elevate material that feels simultaneously underdeveloped and overambitious
• AI Themes Feel Grafted: The film's exploration of artificial intelligence feels tacked on rather than integral to the story's DNA
• Technical Execution Varies: Some sequences demonstrate solid thriller craftsmanship while others collapse under confused direction
• Bottom Line: Mercy is a frustrating misfire that wastes its premise and underutilizes its star, making it a streaming skip rather than essential viewing

Chris Pratt starred in multiple blockbuster films between 2014 and 2018, with several earning over $1 billion globally. (Estimated data)

The Premise: Armchair Detective Meets Algorithmic Conspiracy

Mercy opens with a promising hook. Jake Kelly isn't a licensed investigator or a professional detective. He's something far more contemporary: an obsessive internet researcher who has built a following by solving cold cases through online sleuthing. His methodology combines public records, social media archaeology, and the kind of pattern recognition that separates obsessive amateurs from casual true crime enthusiasts.

The film suggests this is how modern investigation actually works. Online communities have genuinely cracked cases that law enforcement couldn't. The genealogy databases that led to the Golden State Killer's arrest represent a real paradigm shift in investigative capability. Mercy taps into this cultural moment, positioning its protagonist as someone equipped with modern tools rather than traditional credentials.

But the film doesn't explore what makes this investigation method distinct or compelling. Instead, it introduces an AI element that feels almost arbitrary. Jake discovers that an advanced artificial intelligence has apparently been solving cases through predictive analysis, identifying criminals before traditional evidence could. The revelation should raise fascinating questions about algorithmic bias, the ethics of predictive justice, and whether machines can truly understand human motivation.

Instead, the film treats this revelation as merely another plot point to navigate. The AI becomes a MacGuffin, a device to move the story forward rather than a genuine thematic center. This is where Mercy's fundamental structural problem becomes apparent. The screenplay can't decide whether it's exploring the philosophy of AI prediction, the psychology of obsessive investigators, or just delivering a straightforward thriller with twists.

Chris Pratt's Performance: Charm Meets Underwritten Material

Chris Pratt occupies an interesting space in contemporary entertainment. He's proven he can anchor blockbuster franchises like Guardians of the Galaxy, deliver comedic nuance in dramatic contexts, and carry action sequences with genuine physicality. In Mercy, he's asked to play a character defined almost entirely by obsession, yet the screenplay gives him remarkably little to work with beyond surface-level traits.

Pratt's Jake Kelly spends most of the film staring at computer screens, muttering exposition, and looking increasingly confused. This could work if the confusion felt earned, if we could sense Pratt playing a character genuinely grappling with ideas that challenge his understanding. Instead, it reads like Pratt seems as confused about the plot as the audience is.

His comedic instincts, which typically rescue him from mediocre material, feel muted here. The film apparently recognizes that self-aware humor would undercut the thriller tone it's attempting, yet it also doesn't embrace the dramatic depth that would make the character compelling through dramatic means. It's a lose-lose approach that leaves Pratt stranded without resources.

Where Pratt excels is in sequences that let him be physically present. There are moments of genuine tension when Jake confronts tangible threats rather than abstract concepts. But these scenes arrive too late and feel disconnected from the intellectual mystery the first hour supposedly established. The film keeps fracturing between the thriller Pratt is equipped to carry and the philosophical exploration he's not given material to explore.

Estimated data suggests that pacing issues and causal disconnection are the most severe narrative problems in 'Mercy'.

Narrative Structure: Where Logic Goes to Die

Let's talk about what breaks Mercy structurally. The film operates on a timeline that becomes increasingly difficult to follow. Events that should have causal relationships feel disconnected. Character motivations shift without clear justification. Stakes that seem established early dissolve unexpectedly.

A functioning thriller requires that the audience understand the rules of the world. If AI can predict behavior with 95% accuracy, why can't it anticipate the actions of our protagonist? If the conspiracy is as sophisticated as suggested, why does it unravel so easily? If Jake is this brilliant investigator, why does he make decisions that actively work against his stated goals?

These aren't quibbles. They're fundamental logic problems that accumulate throughout the runtime. By the third act, the film isn't just asking for suspension of disbelief. It's asking audiences to ignore plain inconsistency.

The pacing compounds these issues. Mercy moves like a film that had 40 minutes of plot and decided to stretch it across 110 minutes of runtime. Scenes linger without purpose. Exposition arrives in dialogue that no human would naturally speak. Transitions between sequences feel abrupt rather than flowing from one another.

The AI Concept: Underexplored and Underdeveloped

Mercy wants to explore artificial intelligence as a theme, but it doesn't seem to understand what makes AI theoretically interesting or threatening. The film treats AI as a villain that can somehow override human judgment, yet doesn't grapple with how that would actually work or what safeguards might prevent it.

Real concerns about AI in criminal justice are substantial. Algorithmic bias in prediction systems has been extensively documented. Predictive policing algorithms have demonstrated racial disparities. The question of whether machines should make life-affecting decisions about humans is genuinely complex. Mercy could have engaged meaningfully with any of these threads.

Instead, the film treats AI as a plot convenience. When the story needs the AI to do something, it does that thing. When the story needs it to fail, it conveniently fails. There's no internal logic to its capabilities or limitations. This wouldn't necessarily be fatal in a straightforward action film, but Mercy keeps insisting that its AI exploration is central to its dramatic weight.

The most frustrating aspect is that a genuinely clever film could use an amateur investigator and advanced AI as opposing forces. The human bringing intuition, context, and emotional intelligence against pure algorithmic calculation creates natural dramatic tension. Mercy hints at this dynamic but never develops it.

Thematic Confusion: What Is This Film Actually About?

Is Mercy exploring obsession? That's suggested through Jake's single-minded focus on solving cases. Is it exploring the dangers of artificial intelligence? The plot certainly revolves around a threatening AI. Is it about the ethics of prediction and surveillance? Elements of that exist too. Is it an action thriller about someone uncovering a conspiracy? Sure, that's in here as well.

The problem is that these thematic threads never interweave. They exist in parallel, occasionally bumping into each other but never genuinely connecting. Effective thrillers with philosophical dimensions make sure their ideas emerge naturally from character and plot. The characters' choices reflect the themes, and the plot developments illustrate the philosophical stakes.

Mercy reverses this. It has ideas it wants to explore, then constructs a plot that doesn't really need them. You could remove the AI element entirely and have essentially the same story. That's a critical failure in a film that positions AI as central to its narrative.

The film 'Mercy' underperformed due to low narrative coherence and unclear creative vision despite strong premise and star power. Estimated data.

The Supporting Cast: Wasted Potential

Mercy surrounds Pratt with capable actors, yet seems determined not to let them do anything interesting. The supporting characters exist to provide exposition or move the plot forward, but they're rarely given genuine character moments or agency.

This is particularly wasteful because veteran performers could genuinely elevate the material if they were given something to work with. An actor who understands how to convey subtext through subtle choices could find dimension in even thinly written roles. But Mercy's dialogue is so mechanical and plot-focused that even strong performers struggle.

The supporting cast becomes a case study in how screenwriting can waste talent. You have actors who've demonstrated their capability in previous roles, placed in scenes written as pure function rather than character interaction. It's not that their performances are bad. It's that they're not given performances to deliver.

Visual Language and Direction: Competent But Uninspired

Director James D'Arcy brings journeyman competence to Mercy without bringing distinctive vision. The film looks professional. Camera movements are motivated. Editing is clean. None of it feels either particularly considered or notably careless. It's the visual equivalent of a script that functions as plot delivery without deeper layers.

The thriller sequences demonstrate that D'Arcy understands how to construct basic suspense. There's a competent hand at work here. But competence without vision produces unmemorable cinema. You don't remember how scenes look because they're shot in a serviceable, unadorned manner that doesn't emphasize anything in particular.

More interestingly, the visual approach doesn't reinforce the film's thematic concerns. If the film wanted to explore surveillance and algorithmic oversight, the visual language could reflect that. Compositions could suggest hidden observation. Framing could emphasize how algorithms reduce humans to data points. Instead, scenes are just shot in whatever way seems most straightforward.

The Third Act Collapse: Where Everything Falls Apart

Many films struggle in their final act, but Mercy's collapse feels particularly acute because it abandons the pretense of coherent storytelling almost entirely. Plot revelations arrive without proper setup. Character actions become incomprehensible. The rules established earlier apparently no longer apply.

Without spoiling specifics, the resolution doesn't feel earned through the groundwork of preceding narrative. Instead, it feels imposed. The film needed to end, so it ended, and the ending it chose doesn't follow logically from what came before.

This is where you get the most acute sense that something went very wrong in the filmmaking process. Either the script underwent substantial last-minute rewrites that weren't properly integrated, or the director and screenwriter weren't aligned on what the story's destination should be, or insufficient resources were dedicated to resolving the plot coherently.

The third act is where viewer patience, which may have been wearing thin throughout, finally breaks. It's not just that the ending is unsatisfying. It's that it feels like the film stops bothering to make sense.

Estimated data suggests 'Mercy' scores lower in thematic engagement compared to other sci-fi thrillers like 'Ex Machina', 'Her', and 'The Matrix'.

AI-Generated Content as a Lens: A Genuinely Amusing Comparison

Here's where the original critique lands with particular force. The suggestion that Chat GPT could have written a better script isn't actually absurd. AI language models are trained on vast quantities of narrative structure and screenwriting conventions. They can generate competent plot outlines and serviceable dialogue.

Mercy's problem isn't that it's incoherent in ways AI would produce. It's worse than that. It has the structure of something written by humans who should know better but apparently didn't pay attention to their own narrative requirements. An AI would at least be consistent with its own internal logic, even if that logic was simplistic.

This highlights something interesting about modern screenwriting. The collaborative process that should catch these kinds of problems apparently didn't catch them here. Screenwriters, producers, directors, studio executives, and test audiences all presumably looked at this film and didn't intervene to address fundamental narrative problems.

That's not a failure of artificial intelligence. That's a failure of the human systems designed to prevent exactly these kinds of films from reaching audiences.

The Streaming Context: Does This Change How We Evaluate Mercy?

Mercy exists as a streaming original, which matters for how we contextualize it. Streaming platforms operate under different constraints than theatrical releases. There's pressure to generate content volume rather than ensuring quality. Development timelines might be compressed. Post-production might be constrained.

But understanding these constraints doesn't excuse the final product. Audiences accept that streaming films may have lower budgets or smaller scopes. They don't accept narrative incoherence. The rules of storytelling don't change based on distribution platform.

If anything, streaming originals have advantages. They can take risks theatrical releases wouldn't. They can trust their audience to embrace ambiguity or unconventional structure. Yet Mercy embraces neither risk nor ambition. It plays it safe while simultaneously constructing an illogical narrative that feels reckless.

Comparative Analysis: Better AI Thrillers Exist

If you're interested in thoughtful science fiction about artificial intelligence, Mercy isn't where you should spend your time. Ex Machina remains the gold standard for intimate AI exploration, using a single location and three characters to interrogate what intelligence and consciousness mean. The Matrix created an entire philosophical framework around AI domination that still influences how we discuss the topic.

Even films that aren't primarily about AI have integrated the concept more thoughtfully. Her uses AI as the lens to explore intimacy and connection. Arrival engages with artificial systems of communication to examine meaning itself.

Mercy feels less like these films and more like a thriller that wanted a sci-fi hook without doing the work to make that hook integral.

The film 'Mercy' struggles with narrative structure and AI theme integration, receiving a low overall rating. Estimated data based on review content.

What Mercy Gets Right: Honest Credit for Its Strengths

For fairness, Mercy isn't entirely without merit. There are sequences where the thriller elements click. There are moments where Pratt's charisma carries scenes that might otherwise collapse. There's a kernel of an interesting idea about amateur investigation that might have blossomed under different circumstances.

The film's production values are solid. The cinematography is professional. The sound design is functional. These aren't nothing. Mercy is competently made in its technical fundamentals even when its narrative fundamentals fail.

Pratt's willingness to play a character defined by intellectual obsession rather than physical heroics suggests an actor interested in challenging himself. That commitment shows even when the material doesn't deserve it. An actor phoning it in could make Mercy completely unwatchable. Pratt keeps it merely difficult to watch.

There's also something to be said for the film's confidence in its premise. It commits to its armchair detective concept rather than apologizing for it. That commitment deserves recognition even if the execution disappoints.

The Armchair Detective Archetype: What Mercy Misses

The armchair detective concept has genuine cultural resonance. The internet has democratized investigation in ways that legitimately threaten traditional institutional authority. Amateur researchers have discovered truths that professionals missed. There's genuine power in that dynamic.

Mercy could have been a film about how internet communities outcompete institutional expertise. It could have explored what happens when crowd-sourced knowledge challenges official narratives. Instead, it treats the armchair detective as basically a vehicle for Chris Pratt to look at a computer screen and deliver exposition.

A more thoughtful approach would examine what makes amateur investigation powerful without professional credentials. What's the psychological profile of someone obsessed with solving cases they'll never be credited for? How does online community function as both support system and echo chamber? What happens when an amateur detective succeeds but law enforcement doesn't believe the results?

These are rich questions. Mercy barely touches them.

Production Issues: When Things Go Wrong Behind the Scenes

Watching Mercy, you sense that something went wrong in production. Not in a way that's visible in the cinematography or production design, but in the screenplay's fundamental coherence. Either the script wasn't sufficiently developed before shooting began, or it underwent substantial rewrites during production that weren't properly integrated, or the director and screenwriter had divergent visions that were never reconciled.

Films with these kinds of behind-the-scenes problems tend to show it. The narrative incoherence in Mercy suggests one of these issues was present. It's not the kind of incoherence that comes from ambitious swinging-for-the-fences filmmaking. It's the kind that comes from insufficient planning and insufficient course correction.

This matters because it's a reminder that good films require extensive preparation. You can't shoot a coherent film with an incoherent script. You can't edit together a logical narrative from footage shot without clear creative alignment. Mercy appears to be a casualty of these fundamental production issues.

The Critique Is Ultimately About Standards

The most honest assessment of Mercy is that it's not bad enough to be memorable and not good enough to be worthwhile. It occupies an uncomfortable middle zone of competent execution applied to insufficient material. In a world with limited streaming options and unlimited attention demands, that's a genuine strike against it.

When critics suggest that Chat GPT could write a better script, they're not literally saying an AI language model should be doing screenwriting work. They're making a point about standards. They're saying that even an AI system's baseline output would meet basic coherence requirements that Mercy fails to meet.

This is simultaneously not fair to the humans who made Mercy and completely fair to audiences who invest their time in watching it. The creators made a film that doesn't work. The critique acknowledging that is appropriate.

What This Means for AI-Themed Blockbusters

Mercy is part of a broader wave of AI-adjacent entertainment. Every studio is trying to capitalize on public interest in artificial intelligence. But interest in a topic doesn't translate to good storytelling about that topic. The best science fiction has always required that the speculative element serve the human story, not replace it.

Mercy treats AI as a plot device rather than a thematic center. This is a critical misunderstanding. If you're making a film about artificial intelligence, the AI should challenge your protagonist's core values or force them to confront something about themselves. The AI should matter morally and philosophically, not just narratively.

Future AI-themed films would do well to study what works in this space and what doesn't. Mercy serves as a useful cautionary tale: no amount of trendy subject matter can rescue a film with broken fundamentals.

FAQ

What is the basic plot of Mercy?

Mercy follows Jake Kelly, an amateur internet detective played by Chris Pratt who solves cold cases through online research. He discovers that an advanced artificial intelligence has been solving crimes through predictive analysis, and his investigation into this AI discovery drives the film's narrative forward.

Why do reviewers compare Mercy to AI-written content?

Critics note that while the film appears to be professionally executed on a technical level, its narrative structure is so incoherent that even an AI language model trained on screenwriting conventions might produce more logically consistent results. It's a hyperbolic critique meant to highlight fundamental storytelling failures.

Is Chris Pratt's performance worth watching?

Pratt brings his typical charisma to the role, but the screenplay doesn't give him enough to work with. He performs competently but can't elevate material that feels simultaneously underdeveloped and overambitious. His performance is professional without being particularly memorable.

How does Mercy handle the AI concept?

The film treats artificial intelligence as a plot device rather than exploring it thematically. It fails to engage meaningfully with real concerns about algorithmic bias, predictive justice, or the ethics of machine decision-making. The AI could be removed from the story and the basic plot would remain largely unchanged.

Should I watch Mercy if I enjoy sci-fi thrillers?

There are significantly better options available. If you're interested in thoughtful AI-adjacent storytelling, Ex Machina, Her, and The Matrix all engage with these themes far more effectively. Mercy doesn't justify the time investment compared to available alternatives.

What are the main narrative problems in Mercy?

The film suffers from plot inconsistencies where events don't follow logically from preceding actions, character motivations shift without justification, established stakes dissolve unexpectedly, and the pacing alternates between sluggish exposition and rushed action. The third act particularly abandons narrative coherence.

Does the film make a coherent statement about AI danger?

No. The film never clearly establishes what makes the AI dangerous, how it operates, what its limitations are, or why conventional safeguards haven't prevented its threat. It uses AI as a plot element without engaging with what makes artificial intelligence conceptually interesting or concerning.

How does Mercy compare to other streaming thrillers?

Mercy falls below the standard set by solid streaming thriller originals. While it has technical competence in cinematography and production design, it lacks the narrative clarity and thematic coherence that even modest streaming thrillers typically maintain. It's a forgettable entry in the category.

Why would an AI-written script potentially be more coherent?

AI language models, when trained on vast quantities of screenplays and narrative structures, develop an understanding of basic plotting, character motivation consistency, and logical cause-and-effect relationships. They wouldn't produce sophisticated storytelling, but they'd likely maintain internal logical consistency better than Mercy does.

What would have improved Mercy?

The film needed either stronger development of its AI concept as central to the theme, a more focused investigation narrative that didn't try to balance multiple conflicting ideas, or significantly tighter pacing that didn't linger on underdeveloped sequences. Most critically, it needed a screenplay that committed to what story it was actually telling.

Conclusion: A Frustrating Misfire That Wastes Its Resources

Mercy represents a particular kind of modern filmmaking failure. It's not made with indifference. You can sense that everyone involved cared about the project. The film has a premise worth exploring, a star capable of carrying it, and sufficient resources to execute it competently.

Yet the final product is a frustrating misfire that underutilizes all of these advantages. The narrative incoherence isn't born of ambitious swinging-for-the-fences filmmaking. It's born of insufficient preparation, unclear creative vision, and apparent lack of course correction when problems became apparent.

For viewers, the primary takeaway is straightforward: Mercy is a streaming skip. Your time is better spent with the many excellent alternatives available across every streaming platform. The film doesn't fail interestingly, doesn't entertain consistently, and doesn't engage meaningfully with its thematic concerns.

For the film industry, Mercy serves as a useful cautionary tale. Trendy subject matter doesn't rescue broken fundamentals. Capable stars and professional craftsmanship don't substitute for a screenplay that makes coherent sense. Audiences will forgive many things in a film, but they won't forgive wasting their time on material that seems to waste itself.

The comparison to AI-generated content, while hyperbolic, points to a genuine truth. Basic storytelling standards exist for good reason. Meeting those standards requires intention, preparation, and rigorous editorial oversight. Mercy apparently had none of these in sufficient quantity.

Ultimately, Mercy is a film that should be better than it is. The fact that it's not is the most disappointing thing about it.

Key Takeaways

• Mercy suffers from fundamental narrative incoherence where plot events don't follow logically and character motivations shift without justification
• The film treats AI as a plot device rather than a thematic center, meaning the sci-fi concept could be removed without changing the basic story
• Chris Pratt delivers a competent performance but lacks sufficient material to work with, highlighting screenplay rather than actor deficiency
• The comparison to AI-generated content highlights the film's failure to meet basic storytelling coherence standards, not its sophistication
• Better AI-themed films like Ex Machina integrate the concept into the character's core dilemma rather than using it as background dressing

Related Articles

• The Brave and the Bold Writer Revealed: Why Batman Fans Are Worried [2025]
• Prime Video's Steal: A Thrilling Heist That Delivers [2025]
• Netflix and Sony Streaming Deal: 5 Must-Watch Movies [2025]
• The RIP Review: Ben Affleck & Matt Damon's Netflix Crime Thriller [2025]
• Most Controversial Film of 2024: Prime Video's Hidden Gem [2025]
• The 50 Best Movies on Netflix Right Now [2026]