Marvel fans have spent the last few weeks dissecting every frame of the mysterious footage tied to Avengers: Doomsday, but according to the filmmakers behind the project, viewers may be approaching it all wrong.

“What you’ve been watching for the last four weeks… are not teasers. Or trailers. They are stories. They are clues… Pay attention.”

In recent comments, Russo Brothers made it clear that what fans are calling trailers are not trailers at all. Instead, they described the footage as intentional clues designed to spark speculation, reward close viewing, and quietly set the stage for what is shaping up to be one of Marvel’s most ambitious chapters yet.

Rather than traditional marketing beats that outline plot, characters, or tone, the Russos say these videos are closer to puzzle pieces. Every image, sound cue, and edit is meant to be questioned.

Chris Evans, Avengers: Doomsday [credit: Marvel Studios]

Advertisement

Not a Trailer. A Warning.

According to the brothers, Avengers: Doomsday is being positioned differently than past Marvel releases. They want audiences thinking long before opening night. That means misdirection, symbolism, and information that may not make sense until much later.

The Russos emphasized that fans should not expect clear answers right now. If anything, the confusion is the point. The footage is meant to provoke theories rather than confirm them.

That approach lines up with how Marvel has quietly shifted its promotional strategy in the multiverse era. Instead of spelling things out, the studio is leaning into fan engagement, online debate, and long burn mystery.

The Clues Are in the Details

The directors encouraged viewers to look past surface level moments and focus on smaller details. Background imagery. Color choices. Dialogue fragments that seem out of place. Even what is missing from the footage may be just as important as what is shown.

Chris Hemsworth and India Rose Hemsworth [credit: Marvel Studios]

Fans have already begun connecting these clues to past MCU events, alternate timelines, and unresolved storylines from earlier phases. Some believe the footage hints at fractured realities colliding. Others think it is teasing a darker moral conflict at the heart of the film.

The Russos have not confirmed any theories, but they did say that attentive fans are already closer to the truth than they realize.

A Different Kind of Marvel Build Up

This cryptic rollout also reflects the scale of what Marvel is attempting. Avengers: Doomsday is expected to redefine the MCU moving forward, much like Infinity War and Endgame did before it. The Russos seem intent on recreating that sense of anticipation, but with a more cerebral twist.

Instead of hype driven spectacle, they are inviting fans into a conversation. One where speculation, rewatches, and theory threads are part of the experience.

As the Russos put it, the story has already started. It just isn’t being told in the usual way.

And if they are right, every so called trailer so far is less about selling tickets and more about asking a question.

What do you think Marvel is really trying to tell us?

One thing is certain. When Marvel Studios finally pulls the curtain back, fans who paid attention early may be the ones saying they saw it coming.

Before Brian Austin Green found fame as David Silver on Beverly Hills, 90210, he was fired from a popular sitcom.

During an interview for the Monday, March 16, episode of the “Pod Meets World” podcast, hosted by former Boy Meets World stars Rider Strong, Danielle Fishel and Will Friedle, Green, 52, revealed he was let go from NBC’s My Two Dads which aired from 1987 to 1990.

“I was on one episode of My Two Dads and it was the only time that I was ever fired,” Green said on the podcast. “We had been rehearsing, and then we did a run-through, and I had a scene sitting at a table with Staci Keanan, who was on that show, and there was somebody else and I was really new to sitcoms and I just didn’t completely understand the timing of it and … they were like, ‘We’re going to have to recast.’”

My Two Dads was created by Michael Jacobs, who also created and produced Boy Meets World, the ABC coming-of-age series that ran for seven seasons from 1993 to 2000.

Related: Brian Austin Green ‘Couldn’t Really Process’ Luke Perry’s Death

mikel roberts/Sygma via Getty Images Brian Austin Green is reflecting on the difficulty of losing his Beverly Hills, 90210 costar Luke Perry so suddenly. “There was a part of me that couldn’t really process that that was real,” Green, 50, said in a Wednesday, January 31, clip of an upcoming episode of Getting Grilled With […]

After detailing his abrupt exit from My Two Dads, Green said the ousting left him concerned about one particular thing at the time. “I was so young, I was like, ‘OK, I still get paid for this day, right?’ That’s all I really cared about at that point,” he recalled.

As the “Pod Meets World” hosts began to speculate whether or not the person who signed off on Green’s exit was Jacobs, 70, Fishel, 44, offered Green some words of support. “If there’s one gift I can give you, I would just like for you to know, it wasn’t you,” she told her guest, who admitted that it “felt like me” when the dismissal went down.

“I’m not saying you didn’t feel like it was you,” Fishel, who played Topanga Lawrence on Boy Meets World, responded. “You were definitely told it was you. But I do just want you to know. [Jacobs] threatened to fire me after my first day and I was already replacing someone who had been fired.”

After Fishel’s reassurance, Green admitted that it was “good to know now” and detailed that Jacobs was the person who approached him the day he was fired.

“It was very specific,” Green began. “He came out and we were sitting in a restaurant, doing a scene sitting at a table, and he kept giving me these line readings of exactly what he wanted and I couldn’t do it exactly that way, and that was it.”

Green then joked, “It’s affected me for a long time. I can’t wait to tell my therapist.”

A surprising story involving Terrence Howard and Beyoncé has sparked fresh conversation, but it’s Farrah Franklin who is now setting the record straight. 

After Howard revisited a decades-old moment involving Destiny’s Child, speculation quickly followed about who he may have been referring to. 

Franklin, a former member of the group, has now addressed the claims directly, offering her own version of events while keeping her focus firmly on the future.

Terrence Howard Revisits Past Interaction With Destiny’s Child

Howard recently stirred attention during an appearance on the “PBD Podcast,” where he reflected on a missed romantic opportunity involving Beyoncé. 

According to the actor, he once had the chance to pursue something with the singer but ultimately shifted his attention elsewhere within the group.

“You know, I had a chance to date Beyoncé early on,” he said, adding that after their interaction, he ended up connecting with “the other girl inside of, you know, Destiny [’s Child]. The girl with the blue eyes.”

Although he didn’t mention a name, the comment quickly sparked curiosity among fans familiar with the group’s lineup over the years. 

The original Destiny’s Child roster included Beyoncé, Kelly Rowland, LeToya Luckett, and LaTavia Roberson, before later changes brought in Michelle Williams and Farrah Franklin.

Howard’s remarks didn’t stop there. He also recalled a moment at the 2005 BET Awards, suggesting Beyoncé may have singled him out during a performance. 

“I remember Beyoncé looking over at me, and I think that’s why she picked me to do that dance, when she did the kind of strip tease dance that we did at BET or whatever, to show me what I had lost,” he recalled.

Howard’s Comments Prompt Farrah Franklin’s Response

As speculation grew about who Terrence Howard meant, Franklin stepped in to clarify her role in the story. 

Speaking publicly, she addressed the assumptions head-on while correcting key details.

Advertisement

“I’m Farrah with the natural green eyes (not Blue lol), and I can confirm that Terrence and I had a few friendly outings — nothing romantic,” she told PEOPLE.

Franklin explained that their connection was casual and professional rather than anything serious. “We went to the studio a few times, and I will say that Terrence is super talented!” she added.

Rather than fueling further speculation, the singer made it clear she had no intention of expanding on Howard’s version of events. 

She said, “I won’t speculate on anything else that was said, and as always, I wish everyone well and remain focused on my own journey.”

Advertisement

Terrence Howard’s Story Brings Back Destiny’s Child History

Howard’s comments also reignited interest in Destiny’s Child’s evolving lineup during its peak years. 

Franklin joined the group alongside Michelle Williams after Luckett and Roberson exited, though her time with the group was brief.

Following her departure, the trio of Beyoncé, Rowland, and Williams went on to define the group’s most successful era, releasing hits like “Cater 2 U,” which was famously performed at the 2005 BET Awards.

During that performance, Beyoncé was paired with Howard, while Rowland and Williams were matched with Nelly and Magic Johnson, respectively. 

The moment has since become a memorable part of the group’s live show history, adding context to Howard’s recollection.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Beyoncé’s life moved forward in a very different direction. She married Jay-Z in 2008, and the couple now shares three children: Blue Ivy and twins Rumi and Sir.

Howard also noted that the interaction he described happened “very, very long ago,” reinforcing that the story belongs firmly in the past.

Howard Opens Up About Personal Past In Same Interview

Beyond the Destiny’s Child revelation, Terrence Howard also used the podcast to share deeply personal details about his upbringing. 

As The Blast reported, the actor described early sexual experiences that shaped his understanding of relationships, revealing he had been exposed to inappropriate situations as a child.

When asked about the first time he had a sexual encounter with a girl, Howard replied, “I was four and it was the older girls that were watching me…and we did that every day until I was like 13. Had more sex then than I’ve had in my adult life.”

Advertisement

The “Empire” star explained that a lack of supervision during his childhood contributed to those experiences, which he now recognizes as harmful. 

Reflecting on the long-term impact, he admitted, “I wish I had never done that. I would have been a completely different person.”

He also acknowledged how those early experiences influenced his behavior later in life, noting, “I kept thinking that everybody was promiscuous like that.”

His comments sparked widespread discussion online, with reactions ranging from sympathy to debate about whether such experiences should be shared publicly.

Advertisement

Terrence Howard’s Reflections Shape His Life And Parenting Today

Howard’s candid revelations also shed light on how his past continues to influence his present. 

The 57-year-old, who is a father of five, said those experiences have made him extremely protective of his children.

“My kids are never alone. They are never alone without at least two people watching them,” he explained, emphasizing his commitment to ensuring they never face similar situations.

He described his approach as rooted in a desire to protect, saying he is “overly protective” because of what he endured growing up. Looking at his sons, he admitted, “I look at my sons, nine and ten now, and I can’t imagine them getting involved in that. I lost my innocence.”

Howard’s reflections also connect to broader conversations around childhood trauma and its long-term effects. 

Advertisement

Experts often stress that early experiences can shape emotional development and relationships, highlighting the importance of awareness and support.

Kevin Hart is used to making people laugh, but this time, the joke wasn’t his. The comedian found himself at the center of viral chaos after a wax figure meant to honor him left fans doing double takes. 

Instead of applause, the unveiling sparked confusion, memes, and nonstop reactions online. 

Even Hart couldn’t believe what he was seeing, turning the moment into a full-blown internet spectacle that quickly took on a life of its own.

Kevin Hart Reacts To Wax Figure That Left Him Shocked

Kevin Hart didn’t hold back after seeing his new wax figure unveiled at a museum in Tennessee. 

The statue, dressed in a black T-shirt, leather jacket, and gold chain, was meant to capture his signature look, but the final result told a different story.

Advertisement

Instead of recognizing himself, the comedian was clearly stunned by what he saw. In a now-viral reaction, he captioned the Instagram post, “WTTTTFFFFF …. What did I do to these people,” before doubling down with, “This is an attack…. Who in the f*ck is this??????”

The differences were hard to ignore. The statue appeared to have a lighter complexion, fuller hair, and sharper facial features than the comedian is known for. For Hart, the mismatch wasn’t just funny, it was personal.

“At this point these museums are just trying to make me cry,” he added, before demanding, “I demand a redo damn it!!!!!!!”

Hart’s Viral Moment Sends Fans Into Frenzy

The internet wasted no time reacting to Kevin Hart’s post. 

The clip, set to the playful “Frolic” theme from “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” showed a full view of the statue, with text that read, “I know this ain’t Kevin Hart.”

Advertisement

Within hours, the video racked up millions of views and tens of thousands of comments. Fans flooded the replies with jokes, confusion, and disbelief over the resemblance.

Some comments were blunt, with one user writing, “Lololol who is that supposed to be because NO!” 

A second person added, “When you order your wax figure off Temu,” while a third shared, “This is the worst I’ve seen of anyone.”

Others got more creative, comparing the statue to completely different celebrities. One fan joked, “You asked for Kevin Hart and got Kevin The Weeknd,” while another added, “Jason Derulo as Kevin Hart.”

Advertisement

Another user quipped, “You may be entitled to compensation.”

Still, not everyone agreed with the criticism. Dwayne Johnson jumped into the conversation with a mix of humor and sarcasm, writing, “It’s PERFECT, Don’t change a thing.”

Kevin Hart Joins Long List Of Celebrities With Controversial Wax Figures

Hart’s experience is far from unique. Wax figures have long been a source of online debate, with fans quick to point out when a likeness feels off.

Earlier this year, Zendaya faced similar scrutiny after her wax figure debuted in New York. 

Inspired by her “Dune: Part Two” appearance in Mexico City, the statue featured a sleek outfit with leather textures and bold accessories.

Advertisement

While the museum framed it as a tribute to her influence, reactions were mixed. 

Some viewers felt the likeness didn’t fully capture her look, while others defended the effort. 

According to PEOPLE, one person noted it was “realistically not that bad,” while another pointed out that these figures don’t always get it right.

Hart Gets Roasted Again, This Time At The Super Bowl

Even beyond the wax figure drama, Kevin Hart found himself the target of jokes in another high-profile setting. 

As The Blast reported, Tom Brady couldn’t resist poking fun at his longtime friend during the 2025 Super Bowl broadcast. 

Advertisement

Spotting the actor on camera, Brady quipped, “Kevin Hart’s here?” before adding, “How do the cameras find Kevin Hart?” 

The playful jab continued with commentary about visibility, turning Hart into an unexpected punchline during the game.

Brady later made it clear the teasing was all in good fun, adding, “Kevin, I love you. You took so many shots at me in May. I’m coming right at you.”

The moment was a callback to Hart’s earlier roast of Brady during the Netflix special “Greatest Roast of All Time: Tom Brady,” where the comedian joked, “Gisele gave you an ultimatum. She said you have to retire or you’re done. But when you have a chance to go 8-9 you gotta do it.”

Advertisement

Kevin Hart Reflects On Comedy, Criticism, And Public Moments

Despite the jokes and viral moments, Hart has been open about how comedy and public perception intersect. 

Following the roast controversy, Brady admitted he regretted participating in the special, saying he “didn’t like the way that affected my kids.”

Hart, however, defended the nature of the event, calling it “necessary” while also acknowledging the complexities involved. 

He explained that he could understand Brady’s reaction, noting the importance of family and how public jokes can land differently in today’s climate.

At the same time, the 46-year-old emphasized the value of humor, suggesting that moments like the roast help remind people that “a joke being a joke” still has a place.

Advertisement

Celebrating its 23rd year in March 2026, and hosted by the college town of Columbia, Missouri, the True/False Film Fest has a mission to represent the best in international non-fiction filmmaking. This year’s line-up showcased over 30 new feature films and 25 shorts across 114 screenings.

Columbia puts a lot of care and pride into True/False, which is a regional highlight that attracts international filmmakers, press, and audience members every year. Hosted by the Ragtag Film Society, the festival takes over downtown for nearly a week, with the screenings accompanied by music performances, art installations and even a parade. Collider was on the ground at this year’s festival, and the following documentaries are among True/False 2026’s best.

5

‘Remake’

Image via GiantSquid/ Impact Partners

The best documentary at True/False this year is a gut-wrenching and entirely engrossing story of parental loss. Ross McElwee is a decorated veteran of the medium, best known for his 1986 doc Sherman’s March, a movie that was intended to be about Southern U.S. history, but ultimately became about his own love life. Sherman’s March won the Grand Jury Prize at 1987 Sundance, and is preserved in the National Film Registry.

Many docs and associated critics prizes followed for the filmmaker in the years since, with McElwee often using his family members as subjects. Echoing the basis of Sherman’s March, Remake was originally intended to be a look at McElwee struggling with Hollywood producers over an increasingly dumbed-down attempt to adapt the doc to a narrative film, then eventually to a 22-minute sitcom. In the background of all of this, though, McElwee loses his son, Adrian, to a years-long struggle with drug addiction.

Remake makes an unexpected, inspired pairing with last year’s critical darling Hamnet, in that it’s about the unthinkable process of grieving a child and how that could tie in to the creative process. Many will likely find the way McElwee films his son throughout personal and upsetting to be at least a little alarming, but the filmmaker himself addresses the ethics, and his uncertainty about them, throughout. Remake documents Adrian’s young, often happy and funny childhood, a drawn-out and brutal divorce, and ultimately years of secrecy and spiraling. The effect is shattering and impossible to forget. That may sound like a cliché, but it’s true; Remake couldn’t be more vivid.

4

‘The Great Experiment’

Image via Chorus of the Union Films

Stephen Maing and Eric Daniel Metzgar‘s The Great Experiment has the ambitious objective of exploring deep division and polarization in the U.S., specifically in Trump’s first term, all in around 90 minutes. The Great Experiment was likely the best-looking movie at True/False, with black-and-white photography that’s never less than stunning, even as it explores social situations that are nothing short of ugly.

Certain scenes may play out like a political Rorshach test: among the people we spend time with are “Gays for Trump” and utterly nihilistic self-proclaimed members of Antifa, and which of these folks seems more problematic and detached from reality may be up for interpretation. The Great Experiment is sometimes funny in a way that feels like Borat without the man himself, and the quality of the filmmaking here is simply undeniable.

3

‘Pinball’

Image via ITVS/Grey Is Good

On a more hopeful beat, perhaps surprisingly, is this documentary about American refugees of the Iraq War, following years of their uprooted lives in Louisville, Kentucky. Directed by Naveen Chaubal and produced by Bryn Silverman, Pinball documents several international years in the lives of Mohammed Al Windawi, his wife and children Yosef and Azraa (now both young adults).

The younger generation is the chief focus here, and it’s a pleasure to be around them. Yosef is more hilarious, handsome and screen-commanding than many if not most leads I saw in Hollywood movies last year. Pinball is extremely effective in the way it explores the youths’ conflicted and ever-evolving relationship with the pull of their homeland.

2

‘How to Clean a House in Ten Easy Steps’

Image via FromAway Films

A blend of fiction and non-fiction, animation and live-action, with elements of outright fantasy and a musical number, How to Clean a House in Ten Easy Steps is Carolina Gonzalez Valencia‘s tribute to mother Beatriz, a Colombian-born domestic worker who came to the U.S. with aspirations of prosperity through hard work and determination.

How to Clean a House in Ten Easy Steps recasts and reimagines Beatriz as a bestselling author of a book of the same name. The real-life story of Beatriz’s professional, family and romantic life is glimpsed in the film as well. It’s more complicated, in the life tends to be, and likely more compelling, but How to Clean a House in Ten Easy Steps‘ blend of genres and storytelling techniques received an enthusiastic audience response across multiple screenings at True/False.

1

‘Landscapes of Memory’

Image via Meerkat Media, Space Time Films

In Landscapes of Memory, Jewish American filmmaker Leah Galant explores generations of trauma and, well, memory, as a descendant of Holocaust survivors. The film is as much about family as it is about memory, with much of the screen time dedicated to Galant’s father, who has ALS.

Landscapes of Memory draws considerable parallels between the horrors of the Holocaust and present-day Palestine, with Galant’s firm thesis expressing that traumas of the past are being utilized to justify those in present day. This is obviously very heavy subject matter that we’re all too aware of presently, but Landscapes of Memory is effective in its intimacy.

The True/False documentary film festival runs annually in Columbia, Missouri. For more information, visit truefalse.org

Choosing a favorite Michael Bay movie is a little like choosing a favorite flavor of Mountain Dew — none are particularly good for you, but they taste okay and help you do backflips on a dirt bike. Hey, sometimes you just need to get extreme. But Michael Bay himself has fond memories of one specific movie, one that taught him how to work with major actors and a big budget: The Rock.

Just Bay’s second movie (after Bad Boys), The Rock put him together with established movie star Nicolas Cage and very established megastar Sean Connery. No offense to Bad Boys’ Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, but neither of them had ever played Indiana Jones’ dad or James Bond. The stakes were higher, with The Rock having a reported budget of $75 million (compared to Bad Boys’ budget being somewhere in the $20 million range), and Bay credits Connery with helping him keep the project together.

How Did Sean Connery Help Michael Bay on ‘The Rock’?

Image via Buena Vista Pictures Distribution

In an old interview with Fandango, Bay said that he was nervous to work with Connery — even after working with major celebrities in his previous career as a music video and commercial director. Connery plays a roguish villain in The Rock, and Bay was intimidated about giving him his first direction (which was to do a scene “a little less charming”), but Connery’s response was, simply, “sure, boy.”

Bay also went on to say that, while filming Bad Boys, they had no money and no time to make sure they were getting things right, so his impulse was to treat The Rock the same way even though he had a lot more money. He credits Connery, “a consummate actor,” with teaching him how to slow things down and actually rehearse a scene with the actors so they all knew what they were doing. So, whenever Bay is working with “young whippersnapper actors that are late or this or that or not focused” (he didn’t name names, but we’re all thinking of the same guy, right?), he’ll tell them about working with Sean Connery. The fact that Bay’s career has steadily gotten bigger and bigger, with bigger movies and bigger actors, likely means that the lessons he learned paid off.

‘The Rock’ Is Still Michael Bay’s Best Movie

Image via Buena Vista Pictures Distribution

In The Rock, a group of rogue Marines led by Ed Harris steal a bunch of rockets loaded with chemical weapons and capture Alcatraz. They threaten to launch them at San Francisco unless the U.S. government admits to covering up details about how it mistreated Harris and his men. The FBI enlists chemical weapons expert Stanley Goodspeed (Cage) to sneak onto Alcatraz and disable the rockets, but because nobody knows the secret underground tunnels of the former prison, the organization also has to bring in John Mason (Connery), a former British special agent who was once imprisoned on Alcatraz but managed to escape. (The meta-joke is that Connery is literally playing old James Bond.)

Related

The Fighting Irishman — The Collider Movie Quiz!

It’s St. Patrick’s Day; the perfect opportunity to hit the Notre Dame gridiron with Martin Scorsese. Rudy meets The Irishman today.

Advertisement

Cage and Connery quickly become friends, with the sort of action-buddy chemistry that Bay is so good at tapping into (whether it’s between the Bad Boys or the Autobots). The movie is sort of a pure form of Michael Bay’s trademark bombast, with just enough restraint to keep it from being a total cartoon, which is a trap that nearly every subsequent Bay movie fell into (especially Bad Boys II and later). It also doesn’t make any effort to pretend it’s a more serious movie than it is, like with Bay’s bizarrely conceived 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. If Bad Boys is some early formulation of Mountain Dew where they hadn’t perfected the formula yet, then The Rock is the classic, crowd-pleasing version.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

June 7, 1996

Runtime

137 minutes

Advertisement

Writers

David Weisberg, Douglas S. Cook, Jonathan Hensleigh, Mark Rosner

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Renewed interest in using the Bible as on-screen source material has been on the rise in the last decade. Since the crowd-funded darling, The Chosen, took off, a wave of adaptations has followed in its wake. More networks, studios, and streamers have returned their attention to these centuries-old tales in the past few years than the industry at large has in decades. So, perhaps it isn’t surprising that FOX would take a more novel approach with The Faithful: Women of the Bible.

This miniseries — set to air over the course of three Sundays leading up to Easter: March 22, March 29, and April 5 — aims to tackle the matriarchs that established the bloodline that would lead not only to the founding of the Kingdom of Israel but also the lineage of Jesus Christ. However, despite the name, The Faithful is anything but, and those deviations keep the drama from being compelling or effective.

‘The Faithful: Women of the Bible’ Tells the Events of Genesis From a Female Perspective

Image via Fox

The Faithful aims to use each part of its three-night airing to follow a different heroine (or heroines) from the middle chapters of Genesis. The saga begins with the two-part “The Woman Who Bowed to No One/The Woman Who Spoke to God,” highlighting Sarah (Minnie Driver), the wife of Abraham (Jeffrey Donovan), and her Egyptian servant Hagar (Natacha Karam), who gave birth to the patriarch’s firstborn son. The second night — the two-part “The Woman Who Risked Everything” — revolves around the story of Rebekah (Alexa Davalos), the bride of Abraham and Sarah’s son, Isaac (Tom Mison). The third night’s two-part finale, “The Woman Who Loved,” is about the sister brides of Rebekah’s son Jacob (Tom Payne), detailing the tragic story of Leah (Millie Brady) and the complicated romance of Rachel (Blu Hunt). Together, these were the women who birthed entire nations, and The Faithful aims to “finally” tell their story in earnest. At least, that’s the goal.

With only the first two episodes provided for review, there are several impressive aspects of The Faithful worth noting up front, like the series’ overall production value. The visuals are quite enthralling and propel the viewer instantly back in time. Given the current cinematic “Bible boom,” productions that take great care to appear at least visually faithful to the material stand out, even if they’re not shot on location in the Middle East. (Prime Video’s House of David is another such series). Like The Passion of the Christ before it, The Faithful utilizes Italian scenery to stand in for the ancient Levant region in which these events take place, specifically Malta and Rome. There’s certainly a sense of place created here as Sarah and her household move from their initial home in Harran to Egypt and eventually to the land of Canaan.

Related

The Biblical Series Boom Continues With New Female-Led Genesis Adaptation From ‘CSI’ Producer

‘The Chosen’ and ‘House of David’ have become major success stories recently.

Advertisement

Additionally, The Faithful‘s cast includes several capable performers who really carry the show in light of its fractured material. Minnie Driver would never have been my first pick for Sarah, but there are moments here where she shines. Her distant cadence serves the story well when she struggles to trust God for an heir, not sure if her husband is completely sane. However, this also proves a distraction whenever more intimate moments of happiness or levity appear. In many respects, her work on The Faithful is rivaled by Natacha Karam, who wears Hagar’s inner turmoil on her sleeve as she wrestles with her initial desire to return home to Egypt and her present conflict with her mistress. Her moments of desperation in the desert are an effective and beautiful reflection of the original text, further elevating Karam’s role. Yet The Faithful doesn’t lean far enough into her plight, opting instead to spend the majority of its premiere on Sarah.

‘The Faithful’ Tries and Fails To Rewrite the Biblical Narrative

Image via Fox

As was the case with D.J. Caruso‘s bold take on Mary that hit Netflix back in 2024 and other subpar Bible-based features like Darren Aronofsky‘s Noah or ABC’s attempt to retell the tale of King David in Of Kings and Prophets, The Faithful makes such bold strides away from the source material that there are moments where the result is simply unrecognizable. The clear deviations from the text make this uneven adaptation feel like wasted potential. Admittedly, creative liberties will always be taken when it comes to adapting any beloved source material, but there’s a difference between small cosmetic changes and fundamental misunderstandings.

When Sarah is taken away to Egypt by Pharaoh (Amr Waked), for instance, she tells the ancient ruler that Abraham was her brother rather than her husband to save his life. She then tries to kill Pharaoh before he can take her, only for God to intervene and the ruler to cast her (and Hagar) out. While the inclusion of Hagar in this sequence is a creative liberty that works well in the context of the broader narrative, the rest is a reworking of the material that falls flat. The original chapter in Genesis depicts Abraham as the offending party, who introduces Sarah as his sister rather than his wife, and adhering to that version would’ve given Driver a more emotionally rich and morally compelling struggle to work with on screen.

It certainly doesn’t help that The Faithful ignores the most important (and certainly most thought-provoking) chapter in the Abraham saga: the sacrifice of Isaac. Genesis recounts the story where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, only for the patriarch to be stopped at the last moment by divine intervention. It’s perhaps the most famous story about Abraham and this time period, though The Faithful ignores this entirely, at least in the first two episodes. Whether the second batch of episodes, following Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, will delve into it remains to be seen.

While The Faithful offers some interesting notions of doubt for Sarah, particularly her initial disbelief that God wants her to have a child, this undercurrent is never fully developed. What could have been a challenging statement about the difficulty and perseverance of faith is ultimately diluted by surface-level lip service to the text. Had the series tackled the most controversial aspect of this biblical story from Sarah’s perspective, it would have allowed for a more earnest foundation for these doubts, leading to a more cathartic outcome, but The Faithful‘s version is too hollow to be substantially meaningful.

‘The Faithful’ Is a Bold Attempt That Strays Too Far To Be Relevant

Image via Fox

Despite these criticisms, there are still a few redeeming qualities to be found in The Faithful. Hagar’s story is a compelling chapter that is often overlooked, here presented as one of the most foundational moments in early Judeo-Christian history. Karam is a standout in the part, and she is certainly the heroine to cling to most tightly in the premiere. Donovan is a compelling Abraham every time he’s on-screen, and his intimate moments with Sarah are some of the show’s highlights — in fact, his casting is almost strong enough to forgive the show’s general lack of authenticity in the casting of its principal actors and the clear lack of a region-accurate dialect coach (à la The Chosen or House of David).

For those who have read the Bible and have long hoped for an adaptation that puts its female characters in the spotlight, The Faithful certainly claims to be just that. However, upon careful examination, the series can’t strike a successful balance between authentically bringing these women to life and rewriting their stories to fit the prepackaged concept the series was sold as in the first place. Perhaps future episodes will prove this reviewer wrong and better embrace the text that first turned these women into historical, even legendary, figures in the first place.

The Faithful: The Women of the Bible premieres Sunday, March 22, on FOX and will be available the next day for streaming on Hulu.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

March 22, 2026

Network

FOX

Advertisement

Directors

Danny Cannon

Advertisement

Writers

René Echevarria

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Pros & Cons

• The miniseries features a solid cast that carries most of the narrative weight.
• Hagar’s arc is genuinely compelling, though it’s a shame there isn’t more of her.

• The miniseries doesn’t commit enough to the source material to feel like a genuine adaptation or examination.
• There’s a lack of development in Sarah’s wrestling with God and in the fallout of her actions.
• Couldn’t this show have cast actors who better looked (and sounded) the part?

Advertisement

Alan Moore is a pretty big name in the world of comics (and as an author generally, since he’s moved away from writing comics in more recent years), and you might not even have to be a big reader of the medium to know that. His earliest published work goes back to the late 1970s, with his most iconic work, as an author of comic books, being in the 1980s. That’s the decade that saw the publication of various works of his that later got movie adaptations, but it did take until the 21^st century before any of those adaptations got released, since Moore’s work is oftentimes challenging to adapt, or otherwise a little bleaker and more intense than what you’d find in most mid-to-high budget movies.

The film adaptations to date have generally differed from the source material in various ways, so Alan Moore has inevitably distanced himself from them (to put it mildly). Since one of those movies, V for Vendetta, got a wide release 20 years ago (its premiere came a little earlier), it feels like a good time to go over those movie adaptations and rank them, at least of the ones that got a theatrical release. Also, Swamp Thing (1982) doesn’t quite count, so it’s not ranked here, in case you’re wondering. It’s based on a character that Moore wrote for, but the period of Swamp Thing he wrote came just after the movie’s release, so it can’t have actually been based on Moore’s work, nor even influenced by it (he didn’t create the character, but did – post-1982 – arguably re-define/strengthen him).

Image via 20th Century Studios

As an adaptation, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) is pretty loose, and the same can be said for most of the movies soon to be mentioned, too. Vol. 1 of the series was published throughout 1999 and 2000, and it’s the story found within those six issues that kind of inspired the 2003 movie. Maybe it’s more accurate to say that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) just took ingredients and characters from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Volume 1 and did its own thing with them, and if you want to be charitable, that’s in line with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the comic, since the comic series takes pre-established fictional characters and stories and throws them into a blender.

The blended results, if you’re into comic books, are fascinating, at least in terms of Volume 1 and then Volume 2 of the series (the second volume is brutal in its deconstructive qualities, a little like another of Moore’s stories about a team of “heroes”). The movie, though, is more noteworthy for lots of behind-the-scenes drama, including the fact that it motivated Sean Connery to retire from acting, with the legendary actor not appearing in another live-action role for the remainder of his life. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a messy movie, not without some mildly entertaining sequences, but it’s clear it was always going to be difficult to get right, and the sprawling and strange story found in the original comic was not really all that well captured or replicated on the big screen.

5

‘Batman: The Killing Joke’ (2016)

Image via Warner Bros.

Batman: The Killing Joke is an animated movie that got a limited theatrical release in 2016, so it’s worth counting here, even if it’s not really on the same scale as all the other movies based on Alan Moore’s work. It’s also the only animated feature film based on an Alan Moore story to date, adapting the one-shot graphic novel of the same name; one that famously (or notoriously?) went deep into unpacking the Joker, functioning as something of a new spin on the character’s origin story.

The comic came out in 1988, and potentially worked in tandem with Batman (1989) to really make the Joker unstoppable within pop culture (that Batman film wasn’t an adaptation, but it did feature a legendary and memorable Jack Nicholson performance where he played the Joker). So, if you’re sick of the Joker nowadays, you can probably partially thank/blame Batman: The Killing Joke. As for the film, it’s not great, having some of the source material’s flaws while adding a few new missteps of its own. You’re better off just sticking with the source material, which really won’t waste much of your time, either, owing to its brevity and overall punchiness.

4

‘From Hell’ (2001)

Image via 20th Century Fox

Adapting From Hell was a pretty wild thing to take on, and even more bizarrely, it was the first theatrically released feature film to be based on something Alan Moore wrote. The graphic novel, if you compile all the volumes in one, nears 600 pages, so naturally, a bit gets cut from the film… but not as much as you might expect. The graphic novel is generally more grounded than most of Moore’s previous comic works, in terms of not being superhero-related, and also being light on fantastical/sci-fi elements, yet not entirely devoid of them. Those parts of From Hell, the graphic novel, might be the most interesting and haunting, but much of that stuff is downplayed in the film.

As for what’s the same? Both forms of From Hell are about Jack the Ripper, dramatizing one theory surrounding who was behind the notorious murders that the (officially still) unknown perpetrator committed. And both graphic novel and film are gruesome and troubling, just a little less so on both counts regarding the movie (but it’s not too sanitized, or at least not as sanitized as you might expect). From Hell (2001) adds a dynamic between two characters that doesn’t really work, and some of the casting is questionable, because Johnny Depp was an odd pick for Frederick Abberline. At least some of the supporting cast members turn in good performances, like Ian Holm and Robbie Coltrane. It’s a fairly intense and sometimes visually striking movie about Jack the Ripper, and though a more faithful (and perhaps weirder) adaptation of From Hell would likely be better, this one’s honestly not too bad. The ambition to adapt it in any way, really, can ultimately be admired.

3

‘Constantine’ (2005)

Image via Warner Bros. Pictures

Advertisement

Even compared to the other film adaptations here, Constantine is only very loosely based on Alan Moore’s work, if at all. But it’s not like the aforementioned Swamp Thing, since the character of John Constantine was created by Moore, initially actually first appearing as a supporting character in an issue of Swamp Thing published in 1985. Later in the decade, Constantine got his own run of comics, called Hellblazer, and it’s Hellblazer that Constantine (2005) is based on. So even if it’s based on a comic series Alan Moore isn’t directly tied to, John Constantine exists because of Moore.

So, that makes Constantine (2005) worth mentioning here. It’s become something of a cult film, if not quite a cult classic (maybe in the eyes of some), and it does admittedly offer an interesting spin on comic book/superhero cinema, since there’s a heavy element of demonic possession-related horror here. Keanu Reeves does his thing in the lead role, being well-utilized, and the rest of the cast members all do pretty well, generally. Constantine’s visuals and overall feel prove more compelling than the just-okay story being told here, but there are certainly things to like here, and those who don’t like the other movie adaptations related to Moore’s work might find themselves cutting this one a little Moore (heh) slack, since it’s further removed than most from the comics that are unambiguously Alan Moore’s.

2

‘V for Vendetta’ (2005)

As an adaptation, V for Vendetta largely gets things right. The original comic book series was a dystopian one about a neo-fascist political party that rules over the United Kingdom as a police state, and what happens when a mysterious figure known only as V inspires revolution against said party. The comic is a good deal more complex and also a little more interesting, but the film does a good job of getting the basics down.

Also, V for Vendetta (2005) is largely restrained in terms of not adding too much extra action or potentially distracting spectacle to things. It sticks to the dystopian kind of thing that the source material did, mostly being a thriller/drama film with brief bursts of stylized action (perhaps slightly inevitable when the Wachowskis, not long after their Matrix movies, were behind the writing of this adaptation while serving as co-producers; James McTeigue directed it, though). And for what it is, V for Vendetta is pretty good, and occasionally – or at least for a few sequences – pretty great.

1

‘Watchmen’ (2009)

Image via Warner Bros. Pictures

To address not the elephant in the room, but the elephant not in the room (and also, it’s not an elephant, but a squid), Watchmen (2009) omits and alters a fairly memorable section of Watchmen, the comic book limited series originally published throughout 1986 and 1987. Other than that, though, and a slight drawing out of certain action sequences (presumably for the purpose of making things feel a bit more spectacular), Watchmen (2009) largely gets things right, as an adaptation. It is, surprisingly, also faithful… again, for the most part.

It’s got a reputation for not being faithful, and some criticize Zack Snyder for missing the point of the comic, but those critiques aren’t really fair. Snyder’s film does get it, because this still feels like a brutal and effective deconstruction of certain superhero/comic book conventions, only really excising one dramatic sequence of the comic and committing the fairly forgivable sin of making the film version slightly more action-packed. This is a largely great comic book movie, and even if it’s not the slam-dunk that the source material was (that one does earn its reputation as one of the best – and most important – comic book stories ever), it’s closer to it in style and effect than many give it credit for.

Advertisement

Watchmen

Advertisement

Release Date

March 6, 2009

Runtime

Advertisement

163 minutes

Director

Zack Synder

Advertisement

Writers

Alex Tse, David Hayter, Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement