Timur Bekmambetov

Mercy (2026): Exactly What You Will Beg for by the End of This Near Futuristic Slog

Posted on by Jack Drees

© 2025 – Amazon MGM Studios

“Mercy” is directed by Timur Bekmambetov (Profile, Wanted) and stars Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galxy, Jurassic World), Rebecca Ferguson (Reminiscence, Dune), Kali Reis (True Detective: Night Country, Catch the Fair One), Annabelle Wallis (Annabelle, Peaky Blinders), Chris Sullivan (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, This is Us), and Kylie Rogers (The Whispers, Home Before Dark). This film is set in the near future and follows LAPD Detective Chris Raven, who is put on trial for his wife’s murder. Tied to a chair with no escape, Raven has 90 minutes to prove to an A.I. judge that he is innocent. If he cannot prove himself in time, Raven will face execution.

January… It’s cold. It’s uneventful. And the newly released movies sometimes have you begging for mercy. Interestingly enough, one of the films that released last month just so happens to be called “Mercy.” I saw the trailer one time in IMAX, and I wanted my two minutes back. I am sad to say that, because it stars people I like, including Rebecca Ferguson as an A.I. judge. Leading the charge is Chris Pratt, an actor I also like, depending on what he does. He can be charismatic, but not every role of his has the personality of Star Lord.

That said, this film, from the trailer, looked incredibly lazy. Most of it is set in one location, where we see Chris Pratt’s character strapped to a chair, trying to convince an A.I. judge that he is innocent. The whole idea feels like a slightly more ambitious variant of Prime Video’s “War of the Worlds,” which mostly features Ice Cube staring at a screen. I have also heard some comparisons to “Minority Report,” but this did not look like Spielberg to me…

I ended up seeing “Mercy” in a Dolby Cinema at my local AMC. For those who have never gone to a Dolby Cinema, I believe it is the most immersive non-IMAX way to watch a movie, and you should absolutely check it out.  But I would strongly recommend not wasting money on Mercy regardless of the format. This even applies for a standard matinee or bargain Tuesday price. If there is a movie that is worse than “Mercy” that comes out this year, then I might as well organize a funeral for the concept of imagination.

“Mercy” is unimaginative. Not necessarily because it takes elements from superior films like “Minority Report” and “Searching,” though that notion does play a factor. But as I watched “Mercy,” I felt the same way about it that I felt about “Smurfs” last year, which is that this probably should have gone to streaming. The very idea of this movie sounds exactly like something that was intended for Prime Video, after all it is from Amazon. But I guess someone, somewhere, had just enough faith in the project to put it in cinemas. Then again, it is January, where the collective faith in cinema is about as tiny as the chance of playing through Cuphead for the first time and not dying once.

Another reason why this film felt like straight to streaming slop was because of the dialogue. While the dialogue may not be the worst I have ever heard, there would be a line almost every other minute that seems to be designed for people watching movies and using another device at the same time. You ever watched a movie where a character says something out loud that they probably would more likely be saying in their head? “Mercy” has a couple of those moments.

Also like “Smurfs,” if there happened to be any reason why “Mercy” was put in theaters in the first place, it is probably because of the actors. Not everyone in this film is super well-known, but Chris Pratt has starred in several billion dollar movies. Rebecca Ferguson has made a name for herself in the “Mission: Impossible” and “Dune” franchises. Putting these two box office stars in the same project seems like a winning combo. Then unfortunately, the movie happened.

I am not going to pretend that Chris Pratt is the best actor working today, but every once in a while he can be charming, like in “The LEGO Movie” or “Guardians of the Galaxy.” That said, as this movie started, I was actually surprised by how much Pratt’s character, Chris Raven, captivated me with his performance. His character did not want to be in his current situation and Pratt did an excellent job at capturing that. Sadly, the best moments of his performance are towards the beginning of the film, but I would not say that is entirely his fault. The more I think about it, one could argue the middle of the film, where we dive deeper into the character’s alcoholic tendencies, also makes for some meaty material, but still. This is not Pratt’s best work. Yet I would not say that this movie was capable of delivering his best work. His work here is perhaps as good as the script allows, considering how most of his performance is just sitting in a chair. It is not as physical or action-packed as some of his other movies.

Courtesy of Amazon MGM Studios – © 2025 Amazon Content Services LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Starring alongside Chris Pratt is Rebecca Ferguson as an A.I. judge named Maddox. This may be controversial, but I do believe actors are capable of giving performances where it does not sound like they are trying. Ferguson in this case, believe it or not, does sound like she is trying her best with her given character. That said, as I watched this character, it felt like someone, or arguably something, that any actor could play. I am not saying that an A.I. should play this character. But based on what I could only assume is the direction of her performance, Ferguson often comes off as flat. Perhaps that is the point. Robots naturally do not sound as lively or expressive as people. In fact, this movie establishes the judge’s inability to feel or emote. If my review for “Bugonia” suggests anything, I can understand the film’s intent while also finding myself incapable of appreciating it. That said, this film lacks personality, kind of like Ferguson’s character. It is not to say the film did not make me feel anything. After all, it did make me sleepy. So, there’s that.

There are some movies that sound engaging on paper or in a pitch meeting. The more I think about the behind the scenes stories of “Mercy,” the more I imagine this film sounding incredible as a pitch, especially in this modern era. There is a common belief that most audiences want fast-paced content that can be told in as little time as possible. Personally, I do not care what the runtime of a movie is as long as every essential bit of the story can be effectively told in said runtime. “Mercy” is a film that likely delivers a solid first impression when being explained in a meeting or over dinner at a restaurant. Yet the movie itself, for whatever reason, comes off as lazy and uninspired. To further my point, this is a film that is honestly at its best when it begins. We see Raven extremely afraid of his current situation and what’s to come, but with each new point that is introduced, the film becomes increasingly convoluted and dull. It was difficult for me to care about the people connected to Raven in his life. By the time the film gets to the climax, I could not feel the stakes or emotions no matter how hard the movie tries give me those things. I do feel one thing though, and that is regret. Specifically, the regret that I wasted my time on this so-called movie, and I literally could have been doing anything else at 4 o’clock on a Saturday afternoon.

In the end, do not waste your time with “Mercy.” This is a movie that is about as engaging and riveting as court itself. Not very. It disappoints me that this film is so bad, because again, this movie reminded me of “Searching,” which is part of the screenlife style of filmmaking. I like that movie. This film’s director, Timur Bekmambetov, happened to produce that movie. In fact, that is not his sole screenlife credit, as he directed “Profile,” which I reviewed years back and gave a positive score. If you were to ask me what happened in “Mercy” a couple years from now, who knows, I might struggle a bit. However, if you were to ask me how the movie made me feel, I would say “bored,” “tired,” and “frustrated.” “Mercy” is one of the worst movies I have seen in some time, and I am going to give it a 2/10.

“Mercy” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! Next week is the 8th Annual Jack Awards! It is the latest edition of Scene Before’s yearly celebration of cinema, where this time, we pay tribute to the movies of 2025. There will be awards, comedy bits, and more! Stay tuned! And if you want to play a role in this year’s show, CLICK THIS LINK TO VOTE FOR BEST PICTURE! The list is mostly based on my top 10 BEST movies of 2025. Your favorite movie cannot win if you do not vote! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mercy?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the worst movie you watched in recent memory? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Profile (2018): The Power of the Internet Meets the Craziness of Infiltration

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Profile” is directed by Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted, Ben-Hur) and stars Valene Kane (Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, The Fall), Morgan Watkins (Kingsman: The Secret Service, Wild Bill), Shazad Latif (Star Trek: Discovery, Penny Dreadful), Christine Adams (Batman Begins, Black Lightning), and Amir Rahimzadeh (The Heights, Our Girl). This film is based on a book written by Anna Erelle titled “In the Skin of a Jihadist” and follows a woman named Amy who has been doing research on younger girls who end up joining ISIS. As part of her research, she creates a Facebook profile and connects with a real ISIS fighter named Bilel. While doing so, the two develop a bond of sorts that may affect the future of her career and her life.

Right off the bat, I just want to note that “Profile” is quite a fascinating film because it is done entirely through screens. By this I mean the screens of computers and other similar electronic devices like phones. I find it intriguing because kind of like “The Blair Witch Project” exposed back when it came out, it shows that not all movies need to be done on advanced cameras. Now whether that is a positive thing or not, that is up to the viewer. It is all subjective. But I will admit, I was somewhat skeptical on this idea because we’ve had projects like this before, and they did not sound like they were for me. One of the more notable ones I could think of is “Unfriended,” which involves a supernatural force using the account of a dead person. At the time, I just did not have any interest. And as much as some of you will *hate* me for saying this, “Paul Blart Mall Cop 2” was the much more attractive option at the box office the weekend “Unfriended” came out. I saw it theatrically for two days in a row for crying out loud! “Unfriended” got a sequel, specifically titled “Unfriended: Dark Web.” Much like the original, I never saw it. Although one film I was interested in seeing in 2018 happened to go by the name of “Searching.” The film received incredibly positive reviews from critics and average moviegoers. I saw a lot of movies in 2018, but unfortunately “Searching” was not one of them, and I cannot say I have tuned into it since. But “Profile” takes elements of those recently mentioned films because it is almost completely showcased through a screen capture. At times, this film felt more like a fast-paced and unusual Twitch or YouTube stream than an actual flick. Despite not having much detail to work with other than what is on a computer screen, the film nevertheless manages to keep an insane pace from start to finish. I was never bored or uninterested with what was going on. To be completely honest, “Profile” is almost the most intense film I have watched this year.

Not only does it deal with somewhat relevant true events, not only does it take a successfully creative approach to the art of filmmaking, but it is a film that makes the most of what it has. This is my first foray into the endless computer screen camera movie approach, or screenlife is some might call it, and I think I may want to see more, specifically if they are as good as this. Now I am not going to say I will remember every bit of “Profile” by the end of 2021, but it is a marvelously crafted picture from start to finish that sounds offish when you hear the technical aspects, but works completely when you implement the story and narrative into it. When war and movies are put together in the same sentence, you would usually expect something big and cinematic like “Saving Private Ryan” or “Dunkirk.” “Profile” does a really good job at showcasing war in cinema from an alternate point of view. I remember when I first heard about ISIS in 2014 and I would see real life footage of the action in history class. Seeing ISIS in this film sort of took me back to that time in one way or another and at times it reminded me of how a lot of modern history is told. If you have seen shootings, protests, or other serious events in recent years, you’d notice that they would often be shot on a phone, either through a pre-recording or live video on a service like Facebook Live or Periscope (RIP). And sometimes they would be shot in a vertical aspect ratio, or as some people call it, “the wrong way” to take pictures or video. “Profile” is successful in its attempts to show grit or danger by utilizing modern technology that may seem odd for a cinematic picture, but somehow ends up being executed brilliantly.

I have talked quite a bit about the film’s technology, but it is one of the biggest standouts from start to finish. Nevertheless, it does not take much away from the characters. To be specific, Amy, the journalist and main protagonist of the film, and Bilel, the ISIS fighter whom she constantly talks to over video. This film does a really good job at showcasing the stress on Amy’s side and a mix of classiness and terror on Bilel’s side that makes the movie stick the landing and blend some delicious flavors together for an exciting outcome. I do not want to spoil much, but this movie’s hesitancy to go big on the technology does not mean it automatically suffers when it comes to delivering a story. The film’s plot does get a little ludicrous, but maybe not on the level of “Sharknado.” That may be one minor problem of the film, but it is also a blessing because it is also what makes the film attention-grabbing. Nevertheless, giant leaps are giant leaps, and by the end, it almost jumps the shark and the jaws continue to drop. Is it exciting? Yes. But does the movie feel as real in the end as it does in the beginning? Not really.

In the end, “Profile” is a tiny yet captivating little thriller. I do not see the screenlife genre being my new favorite trend in filmmaking, but it is one that I simultaneously welcome because of how good “Profile” turned out. I think the cast is really good, the way they went about filming this movie in just a short amount of time is rather impressive, and despite some absurdity at particular points, the film is still worth watching. It is not playing in many theaters right now, but if you have the time, I would say give it a shot. I’m going to give “Profile” a 7/10.

One other thing I want to point out, and I cannot say this will totally affect my viewpoints on “Profile,” is that this film was first shown to the public in 2018. Although it never got a big public theatrical run until May of this year. I do not know why that is, but this kind of reminds me of the end of 2020 where Disney/Fox dumped some of its long-finished films like “The New Mutants” or “The Empty Man” into theaters. Part of me feels like they just decided to release it now as an excuse to say they put it in theaters because it has been in the can for so long that it needs to go. It was already competing against “Spiral,” “Army of the Dead,” and “Those Who Wish Me Dead.” This film was not too expensive to make, but I feel like Focus Features had little faith in it. I barely saw any marketing, and I did not even pay to see the movie. I was given a free screening online. It just felt like the studio said, “Hey, here’s a movie!” 2021 looks like it’ll be a fine year for movies. There are a lot of big ones coming out, but I feel like “Profile” is another victim of the COVID-19 crisis where the film was just dumped into theaters just for the sake of it. Heck! The film has not even made its budget back yet! I wish everyone involved in this movie well in their careers, but from a distribution standpoint, this was not a victory. Again, this does not affect my score, but in the supposedly changing landscape of film, this is one of the trends that unfortunately continues.

“Profile” did release theatrically on May 14th, but it is highly unlikely you will find a theater near you playing the movie. If that is the case, it is also available to rent on VOD right now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for Zack Snyder’s new film “Army of the Dead.” I saw this movie at a Cinemark the weekend it came out, and I cannot wait to talk about it. I will also have upcoming reviews for “A Quiet Place Part II,” “In the Heights,” and my commitment to seeing this right away is not guaranteed, but I should be seeing “The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard” this week depending on my schedule. Also coming soon, I will be doing another update on my complete Blu-ray collection. I’ve done it in recent years, and I think it is time, now that I am reaching 500 posts, to give you my latest status update. Hope you are excited, because I cannot wait to share the latest details with you. Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account and check out the Facebook page so you can stay tuned for more great content! I want to know, did you see “Profile?” What did you think about it? Or, what do you think about the screenlife genre? Is it cool? Too small? Gimmicky? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!