VIDEO: The Mummy Returns (2001)

We’re sorry...

This video is no longer available due to the shutdown of Blip.tv.

In this episode: Ursa’s Three Rules for Sequels, bad CGI, character development, “The Rock”, and Too. Much. Plot. It’s The Mummy Returns, as we continue our exploration of franchises, sequels, and why we watch them!

Scroll down to comment on this video...

You may also like...

  • edharris1178

    Good stuff, Jill.  I saw The Mummy Returns in the theaters, it’s just a good, fun ride, bad CGI and all.

    • Jill Bearup

      Thanks! Like quite a lot of action movies, it’s best if one doesn’t think about it too hard…

      • edharris1178

         Agreed.

  • Monterey Jack

    Horrible, *horrible*, HORRIBLE movie.

    • Jill Bearup

      To each their own. It was an absolute mess, but I enjoyed it anyway.

  • Well, that was a tad depressing. The last time I saw the movie must have been around 2005, but I must have only remembered the scenes I enjoyed. If the movie had just contained those scenes and left out the rest…

    Hey, the henchman guard is played by the same actor as Eko from TV’s Lost. His enjoyable work in this movie turned out to be merely a hint of his talents.

    I like that the review included the part in which Imhotep runs abruptly into frame, assumes a dramatic position, and yells, “Nooooo!!!” As if to remind the audience that this is HIS movie after all.

    • Jill Bearup

      It does have good scenes. I just choose to forget about the others most of the time.

      “…*runs into frame*…NIE!!!!!”

      Never not funny.

      • The_Stig

        Someone should make a meme out of that. 

  • Sursum Ursa, you like that lame The Mummy Returns, but you disliked The Scorpion King?? *puzzled*

    I’m sorry, the Scorpion King is IMO one of the most underrated fantasy movies of the past 10 years. It’s a fantastic sword-and-sorcery movie, with perfectly cast actors, good pacing, good effects, interesting characters, beautiful landscapes, cool action scenes and funny interludes. It doesn’t have superfluous characters, it doesn’t have gaping plot holes, it has an interesting villain who is actually smart and dangerous without needing magic or anything to rule.

    The Scorpion King (2002) is a better Conan remake than the actual Conan The Barbarian movie of 2011. ;-) Now, its two sequels were horrible, yes. But they didn’t have Dwayne Johnson in them anyway. I really like Dwayne Johnson as an actor in this, which is surprising as I don’t watch wrestling. *shrugs*

    As for The Mummy Returns, I agree with most of the points you raise in your review, but I disagree about the character of the kid. Two things really annoyed the hell out of me in TMR: One was Alex, Rick’s and Evelyn’s precocious son. The other one was the contrived “suddenly everyone is a reincarnation of someone from the past, and we retcon these characters, who have never been mentioned before, into the flashbacks from the first movie” plot.

    And then there was the bad CGI. And I hated how every character had suddenly got a ridiculous power-up, like in a video game. Also, the side-plot about the Scorpion King in TMR was not only superfluous, but the character (if you can call a mindless monster a character) had NOTHING whatsoever in common with titular character in the movie The Scorpion King! Likewise, there was no connection in The Scorpion King to any characters or events in the Mummy movies. That’s why I don’t regard TSK as a legitimate spin-off of TMR, but as its own movie.

    The Mummy Returns is a rehash of the first movie. Whereas The Mummy was a fun Pulp Adventure movie in the spirit of Indiana Jones, the sequel felt long and dragging. As you said in the review, it had too many plot threads that didn’t come together. But worse, we had seen it all before: the same antagonist; the rehash of the “what’s the final symbol?” joke (which I didn’t find cute, but lame and silly); Ardeth Bay and his Medjai warriors riding out to stop Imhotep, yadda yadda; a comic relief character with a quirky aircraft introduced solely to fly the protagonists somewhere; Imhotel using his magic to create a wave with his face on it (only water instead of sand this time) to menace the aircraft, and so on.

    At least The Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor did something new! New setting (China), new antagonist, new type of mummy, new monsters. And no Alex O’Connell!

    • Jill Bearup

      I disliked The Mummy 3. The Scorpion King…I watched for the first time yesterday. Well, I think I’d seen 10 or 15 minutes of it before and wasn’t particularly captivated.

      Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was…well. It tried. But it also featured GrownUpAndSuperAnnoying Alex O’Connell, mummies that aren’t mummies, drat it, and various other things which…meh, I’ll get to them in the review. It does have some entertaining moments, but they’re not enough to redeem it for me.

      “I’m sorry, the Scorpion King is IMO one of the most underrated fantasy movies of the past 10 years. It’s a fantastic sword-and-sorcery movie, with perfectly cast actors, good pacing, good effects, interesting characters, beautiful landscapes, cool action scenes and funny interludes.” 

      Wow. Now I’m wondering if I watched a different movie. Well, except for ‘beautiful landscapes, cool action scenes and funny interludes’ because…they were all there.

      I mean, I was definitely entertained, but I found quite a lot of the acting wooden, the horse thief sidekick completely unnecessary (mind you, the same could be said for Alex O’Connell) and basically…it was a lot of fight scenes stitched together by not a lot of plot. Which is fine for what it is, and it was very, very funny (the actual lines, not just the Physics fail) but for me it struck more of a Good Bad Flicks note than a ‘this is actually a good movie’ note. Mileages. They vary. And a good thing too, or what would we talk about?

      It doesn’t have superfluous characters, it doesn’t have gaping plot holes, it has an interesting villain who is actually smart and dangerous without needing magic or anything to rule.”

      He doesn’t need magic…except the sorceress, who apparently is required to keep everyone on his side. The villain is admittedly interesting. And bizarrely white. I guess they were just going for an Anachronism Stew on purpose, who knows. Also, true, no gaping plot holes. Which I did appreciate.

      • The_Stig

        Here’s what I liked about the Scorpion King, Ursa:

        The Rock has charisma and screen presence that goes on for miles, and believe it or not makes the film a lot better with him in it. If you want to see this on display, I highly recommend The Rundown. The dude makes that film well worth putting up with Stifler for. His best role by far until Fast Five. I just wish The Rock had a better agent who’d get him into better films.

        Kelly Hu is scorching hot. I mean four alarm blazing, I mean so hot she’d make a lesbian turn straight just so she could say that she’d go gay for her.

        And that’s pretty much it.

        • Jill Bearup

          She is, it had to be said, a stunningly attractive lady. And wears clothes mostly consisting of chiffon and sequins, so…you know, I could see how that might be a draw. 

          • The_Stig

            Yep, she definitely does a lot to help us get over the fact that the plot’s a ripoff of Conan the Barbarian.

  • Sammy

    I missed Benny.  I think removing some of the new baddies (I can’t remember the priest doing anything except dying over nothing) and bringing back a mummified Benny would have made the movie better.

    • Jill Bearup

      Mummified Beni would have been…interesting. :) Though it would provide yet another plothole because…why WOULD anyone resurrect him? Nobody likes Beni. Except maybe the audience.

      • Sammy

        Obviously because they found a mummy and thought it was Imhotep, and by the time they found out otherwise it was too late.

        It’s flawless!

  • There are so many built-in ways how adding an eight year old kid character to an adventure movie will ruin it, and yet movie producers don’t seem able to learn the lesson.

    1) All the necessary roles have been filled by the adult characters from the first movie. Does adding this kid really improve the movie? No?

    2) Built-in Mary-Sueism: So this kid is the son of two protagonists, and despite being eight years old, he’s as feisty and brave as his father, as smart as his mother, cute as a button, and I already hate him.

    3) Power-level: Either you write the kid character as a realistic third-grader, then he’s either useless most of the time, or annoyingly bratty, or both. Or you turn the kid into a prodigy who can read a dozen dead languages and cast ancient Egyptian spells better than his mother, then you make the adults look stupid in comparison.

    4) The misconception that adding a child character will make the movie more “family friendly”.

    5) Automatic immunity to bad things: Adding a child character as a protagonist will automatically cripple the antagonist. Because although cliché plot #14b demands that the villain must at some point have the little tyke abducted to hold him hostage, the villains are also contractually obligated to never ever harm the kid in any way, which includes tying him up. [Notable exception: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom] Of course, the child character is under no such obligation, so he can basically do whatever he pleases and act all brave around the villains and threaten them, while the villains’ hands are tied (metaphorically) and they look like morons when the kid outwits his guard and steals some important artifact from under their noses or something.

    • Jill Bearup

      So now what I’m thinking is: you should do a video about annoying child characters.

      Because you nailed it. :D

      They do at least make some attempt to explain why Alex is Plot Immune, which I appreciated. In a movie full of plot holes, they did at least plug that one up.

      (Also, I am now determined to use the phrase ‘built-in Mary-Sueism’ in a conversation today.)

  • The_Unusual_Suspect

    Love The Mummy Returns, strangely enough, I enjoy it more than the original. So many great scenes: the bus chase, the attack of those little mummy things which kill everyone, the massive tidal wave with Imhoteps face on it. I don’t understand why it was panned so much, I think it’s really underrated. The CGI is bad, but it was made in 2001. Funny thing about this movie, apparently Brendan Fraser had never met The Rock at the time of the film’s release, despite fighting him at the end.

    • Jill Bearup

      Loved the bus chase. So much. But the tidal wave? Since when does ‘control over the sands’ mean ‘control over water’, movie? EXPLAIN!

      The thing that disappointed me about the CGI was that The Mummy, which was released 2 years prior, was better. Your CGI should not get worse. That seems wrong.

      • The_Unusual_Suspect

        Yeah, it’s weird as the Mummy Returns had $12 Million more in its budget. Perhaps most of that went to getting all the actors back. I’m betting they all used that to their advantage for a bigger paycheck. You take a successful franchise like Iron Man and what such a good position Downey Jr must be in. He could threaten to quit and the studio would have no choice but to pay more to keep him. I wonder if Weisz asked for too much for the 3rd film. Maybe that’s why she wasn’t in it.

        • Sofie Liv

          Well all actors having major parts in the Marvel movies has all signed for three single movies and three team-up movies each from day one.

          So he can’t walk from that one, he is legally bound to three movies of each.

          And Marvel has stated in a official interview that they don’t have any qualms about exchanging actors at all. They stated very specifically that if Robert Downey jr walked, they would very simply re-cast him as they feel there are room for many actors giving different interpretations to the same characters and he is not the only actor out there able to play this part.

          Now I know a lot of fan-boys out there are ready to make a big out-cry against this, and say. “Nooo!  I wont see any-one else put on the iron suit ever.” But I personally find it bloody brilliant, healthy for the genneral arrogant actor attitude in Hollywood (In theory these people should be profesionals, but are they always that?)

          Also as an actress, I agree with Hollywood, there are so many talented people out there whom simply just are never seen, and yes, there are others able to play Tony Stark, it will be different, of cause, and that is good. sorry for side-tracking.. cause as always, Sursum Ursa did so good :)

          • Goblin1001

            I agree 100% that Hollywood needs to have that attitude about actors being replaceable, especially with pre-established characters–  Iron Man was around as a character long before Robert Downey Jr played him.  And we don’t need to constantly “reboot” series, either.  No one felt the need to start the James Bond films over from scratch when Roger Moore took over, and we don’t need to see Spiderman or Batman’s origin AGAIN (at least not as the focus of a film!)

          • Sofie Liv

            Well.. these are two different cases I think.

            With Nolans Batman the story is now closed, for good, Nolans Batman wont come back, that would just compleately undermine the ending of “The Dark knight rises.” so if there are going to be more Batman films, yeah they would pretty much need to be re-booted. They how-ever, don’t need to tell the origin story.. they could just start while he is all-ready Batman.. like Burtons 89 Bat movie only briefly mentioning the murder. But a re-boot with a new look and new world would be needed.

            How-ever! with Spiderman.. yeah! they didn’t need to re-boot that thing! they could have re-casted and continued the story line of Sam Raimis movies! totally, you have a point there!

  • Thomas Stockel

    A great review, Ursa!  I was pretty indifferent regarding the sequel and I think you really summed up largely what I disliked about it; it was just too messy.  I look forward to your next review!

    • Jill Bearup

      Thanks! Glad you liked it. :)

  • maarvarq

    The most moronic thing about the “dawn sunlight hitting the pyramid” scene isn’t so much ordinary humans trying to outrun the sun, which is admittedly pretty stupid, but the day/night terminator moving in the wrong direction. At dawn, parts of the landscape that are up highest, like, ooh I don’t know, the top of a pyramid, get the morning sun first.

    • Jill Bearup

      I didn’t even notice that. 

      Ha! That scene was hilariously stupid before…and now it’s even MORE hilariously stupid!

      Have an Internet cookie, sir or madam. You deserve it.

      • maarvarq

         I’m a sir, dear lady, and you’re welcome :-)

  • The_Stig

    Things I liked about this film: The bus chase, the Anakh-Su-Namun/Imhotep dynamic, the Rick/Evie dynamic and the sense of how far they would be willing to go to save their son, Alex wasn’t nearly as annoying as he could have been and Jonathan worked as the comic relief. All in all it’s what I’d call a perfect popcorn film. Even more “dumb, but fun” than the first. You got 2 hours to kill? Pop it in and be entertained, and holy crap Rachel Weisz looks so sexy fighting with sai! 

    Oh, and I love Imhotep’s “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!” when Rick kills the Scorpion King with the spear, it’s just so Calculon. That cracks me up EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    But I do have one nagging nitpick about this film.Speaking of continuity, Ursa, in The first Mummy film, Imhotep mistakes Evie for Anakh-Su-Namun, yet in The Mummy Returns she’s the reincarnation and spitting image of the princess. (ah, THAT cliche. Oldie but a goodie). So why didn’t Immy recognize Evie as said princess instead of his lover in the first film?Yes, I know the “Evie’s a reincarnated princess” thing was thought up for the sequel, but continuity people! Come on!And the Medjai are still the worst guardians ever. And yeah, I still want to know what the hell’s up with the flesh-eating scarabs.

    • Jill Bearup

      Yeah, that Evie/Anck-su-namun thing. I mentioned it, albeit briefly, but I didn’t want to get into it too much. The plot chasms, there are many. :)

      • The_Stig

        If you really think about it, you could consider Imhotep more of a tragic antihero than a villain. Especially in the second film. Here is a guy who helped murder his own Pharoah and got mummified alive in the most ill-conceived curse ever devised because he loved a woman that much, and what does she end up doing? Buggering off when he needs her the most after they’d just been reunited because she seemed more in love with Imhotep’s power than the man himself.

        I’d call that a tragedy.

  • Goblin1001

    I never hated Rose the way I hate River Song, because as the Doctor’s companion, Rose was sort of automatically the necessary “everyman” character of the series, and to me, she earned her place gaining the Doctor’s respect over time, which was really established by THE IMPOSSIBLE PLANET.  With River, she gets plunked down in the story and we’re TOLD, repeatedly and ad nauseum, how fucking AWESOME she is, and she has to be super-woman when she DOES do anything.  Basically, she didn’t in any way EARN our respect, where I feel like Rose did, with a story arc taking her from a normal shopgirl to an experienced time traveler.

    • Jill Bearup

      That’s pretty much exactly why River irritates me. :) She gets less annoying as she gets less competent, which is weird because of our timeline but makes sense in the story, I guess? Still…weaknesses make characters interesting. Mary Sues don’t really do it for me. If they want god-like powers, awesome. But they better earn ’em. 

      See Honor Harrington, for example, who is awesome and amazing and could easily be very Mary Sue-ish, but also deeply flawed and comes into her awesomeness over time, and so avoids it. Well. In my opinion, anyways.

      • Sofie Liv

        I think she did… by her very first appearance, she took the doctors place and pretty much died for him… period. She died, for him. And as he meets her that second time, that weighs on his concious.

        Now, what I believe annoys people so much is that the doc now supposedly “Loves.” her so much, and marries her and all that, cause she is “Fucking awesome.” … I am not sure that is the case.
        Yeah the Doctor “marries.” her (if you can call it that, he halfly married her.) and yes he gives her all sorts of nice things.. but honestly, a part of me keeps thinking that is way more out of guilt than any-thing else. Yeah he likes her, but he doesn’t.. love her that much.

        When he first meets her, she died for him, he knows the river he knows now eventually will go along and die for him. He finds out he was the one not able to safe her as a baby, thus condeming her to a sort of ass childhood. Then he is the one and only reason she is locked up in prison for life, because of a murder she didn’t even commit. At first he assumes she will make the murder, but he knows she doesn’t want to, it’s made out of force. Later we find out he didn’t actually die, but she is still in prison for life because of a murder she didn’t commit.. and it’s all because of the doctor, the least he feels he can do is taking her out every single night. Is this love? probably not, but he does feel responsible.
        Has Riversong earned her place on the doctors side? Taking the blame for a murder that didn’t take place, maintaining to tell the world that yes he is dead, even if it isn’t so, and ultimately proving her love by taking his place in the death chair.. urhm.. yes!

        I think she has! and I am one of the very few, whom likes Riversong more and more the more I learn about her. She is freaking tragic man! the more I learn about her, the more devastating “Silence of the Library.” is to watch. :,(

        Rose how-ever, I found just okay in her first season.. then in the second season she suddenly turns into a moron and I started not like her at all…

        • The_Stig

          I used to like River Song. She was an interesting character because while we already knew her ultimate fate, who she was and how she got to that fate was a mystery. 

          Then Moffat fell in love with the character and made the show more and more about her. That’s when she lost me. 

          Still though, she does have some awesome lines like “Well, I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I suddenly thought “Gosh! the Third Reich’s a bit rubbish, I think I’ll go kill the Fuhrer.”

          • Sofie Liv

             Well, a big difference between Steven Moffat and Russel T Davies is that Moffat genuinly writes about the companions and gives them the story archs, while T Davies was way more focused on the Doctor often leaving the companions behind in the story arch department.

            It’s a matter of taste.. but I think Moffat have it right, you should focus on the companions, they are the relatable ones you can discover things through and whom can change as the story goes along.
            The Doctor is this big fantastic being whom by the end of the day should stay largely the same and fly away in his tardis for new adventures.

            Season 5 we could might as well call. “Season Amy Pond.” it’s about her! it’s about her evolution, her growth, her discoveries, it’s Amy’s season.

            Season 6.. it’s Riversongs season. About finding out whom she is, where she came from, what drives her, ext.

            Some-times it’s a bit rushed, but I do believe it indeed was far better to use what Moffat had previously sat up and genuinly explain stuff instead of leaving loose plot threats. Good news is we are done with season riversong now, and we will very shortly move along to a new companion with a new arch.

            And still, I like her! we know now, why do she always throw herself of buildings so carelessly? Well, because she knows, she KNOWS that no matter what the doctor will always catch her and never ever fail.. I wish they had given a line about that though.. but ultimately she does know the doctor has all-ready meet her future self, thus he all-ready had sort of caught her so she wouldn’t did. It could have been a romantic cheesy line that made all sorts of sense in the “Lets kill hitler.”  some-thing like. “I know I failed you.. many times, meaning in your future I will fail you, but trust me, never, never have I failed catching you, I will never fail catching you. So please, stop this.” .. that could have worked couldn’t it?
            But oh well so many informations in that single one episode, where did River get her doctor rules from? he gave them to her, when would the doctor ever give up his name to any-one? no, not when he marries, when he is dying! so yeah, still one of the few liking her more the more I get to know her.

            She is a tragic, opperatic bigger than life character, with a tragic beginning, a tragic middle and a tragic ending. No she is not entirely relatable, because of the opperaticness of her story, but she is fascinating. And people should really put their mind at ease, now as she has been explained and her story arch is sat on ease, I doubt will get to see her that much more apart of the occasional cameo. Her story is done know, we know all we need to know. her story with the doctor, why he takes her out every night, how he did it. (remember he had a two-hundred years time-span to do it within the season, the doctor by the end of the season is two-hundred years older than the doctor by the beginning.) so yeah.. pretty much done and wrapped up. Which I am ready to give Moffat an ovation for, he managed to wrap up this convoluted unique fairy tale story with a bow on top instead of just letting it wrong without answers as if it was episodes of “Lost.” no.. it’s done.

          • The_Stig

            Yeah but the problem (one of them, anyway) with Russell T. Davies is that Rose wasn’t much better. Despite the fact that he’s more or less turned Doctor Who into The River Song Show With Special Guest Star The Doctor, I feel Moffat’s still the better overall writer and let’s just hope he’s more or less done with River for the time being. I like the character when she isn’t Mary Sue-ing it up, and we all got sick of her the past couple of years. 

          • Sofie Liv

             Past couple? she’s only been around for two plus silence of the Library.. between that and season 5 we didn’t see her at all.

            And yeah, my big guess is we are done with her now, no more Riversong back-ground story, it’s covered, she’ll just show up to kick ass on occasion from now on.

            Oh I prefer Steven Moffat as a writer by FAR!
            Russel T Davies era for me is. “Wauw this is fun, I can get past the obvious flaws cause it’s fun, this concept is sheer genius. concept.. not writing.

            Steven Moffat for me is.
            …. oh my god… genius..
            Is this.. is this written for me? This feels like the show written for me.

            Steven Moffat is seriously one of the few people in the world writing new original gothic fairy tales, and not only does he writes them, he writes them very well.
            He writes fairy tales, with fairytales figures (riversong is very much a fairy tale figure more than a social realistic figure.) using fairy tale rules. not all does boring ‘realistic’ sci-fi rules we have been so accostumed to, and RTD writes after.. and I love that!
            I crave for more shows written like that, I crave for things using fairy-tales rules. Not just fairytale refences to pop them down in boring thriller plots (calling it red ridding hood does not make it a fairy-tale, the nature of the fairytale lies in the structure and feel of the story, not what names and visiual ques you happen to have.)

            So YES! I adore Steven Moffat, and was it up to me, the man should be able to do what-ever he wanted when-ever he wanted!

            Now when Hammer Studios is up again trying to make movies.. they should totally work with him getting Moffat to make more re-works of classic horror fairytales… totally.. I wish so deeply!

          • The_Stig

            Yeah, that’s what I said. The past couple of years, as in the past couple of series where River’s been a semi-regular. Yeah let’s hope we’re done with her now. 

            As for Russell? He’s great at his best. At his worst we get Love and Monsters. And let us not speak of Torchwood ever again.

          • Sofie Liv

            RTD always tries, there is not a single episode where I get the sense that he didn’t care. All his episodes are filled with passion and a feeling that he tried, even when they fail, and I can’t fault him for that, I can only admire his passion. Also with Torchwood episode… except that god awfull US thing which we shouldn’t speak off, but I want to point out how obvious it is that RTD had very little say in that thing and did almost none of the writing. He did the concept, none of the writing, and that was indeed an ASS mini-series.

            The one biggest saving grace of the original Torchwood was that at least it was having fun as it ravished in its own un-pretentious campness.

            The US thingy had NONE of that, there was no saving graces left.

          • The_Stig

            I agree with that. I’m a huge RTD fan but when RTD gets stupid, he gets REALLY stupid.

          • Sofie Liv

             I rather watch a piece of RTD that failed every-day than a hollywood movie that doesn’t give a shit.

            One is yeah failing, but memorable and passionfilled, the other is not. It’s basically the “Indiana Jones temple of doom.” vs “Indiana Jones and the kingdom of crystal skulls.” argument again.

            And I still say temple of doom! why?
            One single word.

            Passion.

            Steven Moffat has yet to fail as bad as RTD some-times did though.. and they clearly share passion in equal measures when it comes to writing for Doctor who. When Steven Moffat told in a inteview that he often ended up giggling and speaking lines out loud as he wrote… I did not doubt him.
            But dude, that’s awesome! It means he loves it, that’s only ever great.

          • The_Stig

            You know what passionate awfulness is called? Camp. 

        • maarvarq

           Like River Song having to be constantly described as awesome, every passing character was obliged to rave about how “beautiful” Rose was, which really bugged me after a while. Pul-leeze! There are at least 6 other Companions that make Billie Piper look like a man in comparison.

          • Sofie Liv

             I always hate to sort of give a consent to this.. cause I am wishing for a world where female leads don’t need to be pretty all the time.

            But yes! yes there is a genuine point here! and the major things which makes it okay to point this out is that every-body else within the show keeps on going. “Oh Rose she’s so hot, she’s soooo beautiful!!!” erh.. no.. I’ll buy it more if you say that about Amy, cause Karen Gillan is so very pretty…

            Riversong.. what I think they tried to do with her is making female James Bond in Space.
            Every-time you see her she is so cool, she can spring around with her gun and be all cool and profesional about it. She’s a master assasin (as stated.) trained to be a human weapon, broke free, can break your bones if you cross her, lie and deceit her way to a bit of fun.
            (Beginning of Pandora opens, River broke into the future national gallery to steal a painting, then went back in time to paint grafitti on the worlds oldest cliff-side, then found some romans and convinced them she was cleopatra, all in a afternoons work of Riversong… and then she just lays there to have her class of wine and her roman servants cover her ever need.. if that is not cool I don’t know what is.)

            And unlike Rose and other companions I could mention.. Riversong seems like a woman, not a girl, a woman.. dangerous sexy woman.. so I totally get that. “Wow.. it’s female james bond!” attitude characters within the show have.. cause that is whom she is. She really is the devil in high heels..
            you don’t want to fuck around with her, you will pay.

            Also. “You trust this guy?” “I compleately trust him!” “You’re sure he is not just some kind of madman.” “…… I compleately trust him!” that’s more understanding for whom and what the doctor is than most companions <_<

          • maarvarq

            I am wishing for a world where female leads don’t need to be pretty all the time

            Oh, I fully agree, and wouldn’t have made the point except for Russell T Davies’ obvious crush on a character I found no better than somewhat annoying. Mind you, I’m also finding the current schtick of “The Doctor is the biggest badass in the universe and also universally acknowledged as such” is getting a bit over-the-top too.

          • Sofie Liv

            Well again, you gotta know the character, whom he or she is and how the others view her.

            If it’s a lady where it’s a part of her character that she is beautiful. (like maybe snow-white.) and the other characters within the movie also thinks she is beautiful, guess what, it’ll be essential that what-ever actress truly is beautiful. So then it’s okay.

            And with Rose, yep, every-one within the show seems to be crushing on her. Why is they doing that? I don’t know! I am willing to buy that when it’s Amy cause Gillan is as pretty as she is, I am not buying it with Rose because she is just Average and does not have a personality to make up for the average.

            It’s cool with me she is average looking, that’s good, I just wish the show would realise that as well.. she aint that special.

            This is of cause a matter of taste.. but I do think Alex Kingston can come across as very sexy, she’s a attractive woman whom gets to be seem like she is more beautiful than she actually is because she can play up the right attitude.

          • maarvarq

            If it’s a lady where it’s a part of her character that she is beautiful.
            (like maybe snow-white.) and the other characters within the movie also thinks she is beautiful, guess what, it’ll be essential that what-ever actress truly is beautiful. So then it’s okay

            …as opposed to, say, casting Kristen Stewart as Snow White against Charlize Theron as the Wicked Queen :-)

          • Sofie Liv

             god yes.

      • Thomas Stockel

         I love Honor Harrington. :)  And River Song is the sort of character where less is more.  Had she maybe shown up in half the episodes she appeared in she would be less annoying.  You can have too much of a good thing.  I am watching 3rd Doctor Pertwee episodes and apparently for an entire season every episode had The Master as the bad guy.  A little too much over exposure, imo.

  • I find it very annoying the way moffat and rtd keep trying to make “the ultimate companion!” with all do respect fellas, you don’t get to say who the best is, WE do. Speaking of which, here’s an open question for any body to answer: Who was the best doctor who companion? me personally, and I know this is such a common answer is practically a cliche at this point, but I have to go with Sarah Jane Smith. She was just awesome.