Chris Pratt says he initially wanted the AI judge in Reconnu Coupable to be played by an actual AI, an idea colleagues shot down before Rebecca Ferguson took the role. The January 28, 2026 sci-fi thriller follows a detective racing 90 minutes to prove his innocence to an AI he helped build. Critics were unconvinced, with a 21% Rotten Tomatoes score.
Before cameras rolled on Reconnu Coupable, Chris Pratt floated a wilder twist for his sci-fi thriller: sharing the screen with a literal AI performer. The experiment never made it past the conference room, and Rebecca Ferguson stepped in to embody the algorithmic judge scrutinizing his character. What follows is a race-against-the-clock drama set in a near future, where a detective accused of killing his wife has 90 minutes to clear his name under the gaze of the system he helped build. The concept promised a slick mash-up of Minority Report and Black Mirror, but early critics on Rotten Tomatoes were unforgiving.
A bold vision for a sci-fi thriller
Some projects arrive with a hum that’s hard to ignore. That’s the case with the science fiction thriller many fans tracked ahead of its January 28, 2026 debut, headlined by Chris Pratt. He plays a detective accused of murdering his wife in a near-future courtroom where judgment is delivered by an all-powerful AI. He helped design it, which sharpens every beat of the trial.
The setup invites echoes of Minority Report and Black Mirror, but leans into the intimacy of a ticking-clock drama. The defendant gets 90 minutes to mount a defense before the ruling locks. As the case unfolds, public opinion, data biases and coded ethics collide in a claustrophobic battle over truth and control.
Chris Pratt’s AI experiment that didn’t pan out
Before cameras rolled, Pratt floated a provocative idea: cast a real AI system as the judge. Not a synthetic voiceover, but a learning model driving on-screen choices. The pitch sparked interest, then hesitation. Technical risks were obvious, but so were creative ones, especially the danger of flattening nuance in key exchanges.
Ultimately, the team chose a human performance. Rebecca Ferguson stepped in as the AI adjudicator, channeling impassive logic without losing readable intent. According to Pratt, the AI casting idea was one of many early blue-sky notions considered, then set aside once the production weighed reliability, performance control and audience connection.
An underwhelming debut for the high-concept gamble
The movie opened in theaters on January 28, 2026, aiming to turn its sharp premise into a commercial and critical win. Reviews were tough. On Rotten Tomatoes, it landed at 21%, with critics citing clunky pacing and a story that gestured at big ideas without fully unpacking them. The courtroom pyrotechnics didn’t quite translate into emotional stakes.
Some praised the cold magnetism of Ferguson’s presence and the nervy first act. Others argued the film stranded its best questions behind exposition. For a thriller promising precision, the plotting sometimes drifted, dimming the momentum it needed to stick the landing.
What this means for Hollywood and AI
Even so, the near-miss tells us something useful about where movies are headed. Casting an actual AI remains more thought experiment than practical plan, yet it keeps resurfacing as tools evolve. Will a fully synthetic co-star ever feel believable across a full feature?
Studios are already exploring AI for dubbing, VFX and previs. But performances are another frontier. For now, films like this one suggest a middle path: let human actors embody machine logic, and let audiences read the gaps. The debate will keep moving, on set and off, scene by scene.