ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

emsky333 It is a great idea for a TV show, I absolutely love the stories, however, they are very loosely based (at best) on the objects in the museums. For example, a medieval clay etching, depicting farming in ancient Britain, then goes on to tell a story on crop circles. Or the story of John Smith, a barber who once cut president so and so's hair, who used this phone, that is on show at the museum of telephones... It's kind of funny how irrelevant the objects actually are. It's also another very americanised program, in this I mean that the historical war accounts are somewhat pro-America, and twisted to paint their history in a favourable light. It's bias, annoying, and eyeroll inducing, because more often than not, there is much more to the story. Overall it is a good show, and worth watching if you love history.

rebekahrox This is a great show. It is amazing what fascinating little nuggets of history they dig up. Some of the stories are so compelling I am continually amazed that they aren't more well known. Some of them would make great films. I will very often research the stories on my own to get more information. Usually, the portrayals are fairly accurate, although they do emphasize certain aspects and play down (or ignore) others for dramatic purposes. I usually DVR the show and watch it in bed, preparing to go to sleep. As fascinating as it is, conversely,it has a somnolent affect on me, and I usually have to re watch 2 or even 3 times to get through all of the stories. I think it is partly due to the reliable and unchanging rhythm of the show. they start out each entry the same way: setting the scene with the museum that holds the artifact that will introduce the related story, first mentioning some of the other museum holdings, then describing the physicality of the artifact in question. Then they tell the story with silent actors pantomiming the narration.The narration itself has its own certain conceits: then never use one word when three will do, and adjectives abound. They never use a simple word, when a fancy one exists. (It's never a book, It's and "ancient tome" . People don't die, they "succumb to injuries"). Another little conceit is the rhetorical question and the use of puns. For example, In the story of the Double Eagle balloon crossing of the Atlantic: "Will their "lofty" ambitions be fulfilled? Will the balloon rise to the occasion? Will a slave that worked as a seamstress trying to get confederate plans to the Union be able to "thread the needle" and sneak past guards? How did a brassiere "boost" a young mother's bank account?" I love it. It's amusing. Don Wildman, the host, is superb. He has a great tone, and conveys a sense of urgency, when called for, without getting all worked up. And always has this kind of amused inflection. Plus he is very easy on the eyes.Another thing that is part of the predictable comfortable rhythm is timing and flow. When they finish one story, they immediately start the next one, saving the commercial break until a crucial cliffhanger. After the commercial break, they briefly recap the story and proceed. This is good for fast forwarding through the commercials, or if you doze off during the story, you can get up to speed without having to rewind. I swear, it's the same pattern over and over. It's like waves crashing on a beach. Two other shows that are just as good are Mysteries of the Monument and Mysteries of the Castle.

nancyandcecil On the episode about Mrs. Lincoln seeking a medium after her husband's death and getting a superimposed photo of her deceased husband standing behind her, the narrator said she had lost two sons, when in fact, she had lost three sons. One child died before they entered the white house. Her oldest, Robert, was her only surviving child. I enjoy this. Show immensely and my husband and I watch it as often as possible. I am doing a radio reading of our local history and we touch on the incident of Nubuo Fujita and his visits to Brookings, OR. How that came to be differs from the story on Mysteries of the Museum and what local history has recorded. I am just wondering if you actually visit the museum and get the information from them or if it is obtained somewhere else. The first story had wrong information, whereas the second story just had differing information.

Film Filmesen First of all, it's a good idea for a show. But sadly it's executed in the most typical American way possible.Take the music, for example. The crappy midi orchestra or whatever sounds exactly like your average reality show. Whatever American show I'm watching nowadays, the same stupid midi orchestra music appears. I'm sick of it.Secondly, the writers. This show's script is awful with a capital A. Wildman is a hero for turning the script into something listenable. It's clearly written by someone pretending to be eloquent, but inserting all kinds of strange adjectives and synonyms just for the sake of it isn't helping. Instead of "honest", they use "veracious". Instead of "harmless", they use "innocuous". Instead of calling New York a big city, they call it a "thriving metropolis". This is fine every now and then, but they do it ALL THE TIME. It makes me sick.Finally, this show is all about plots, "clever ruses", "daring ruses" "shocking tales", "devious plans", "sinister incidents". The writers tells me how I'm supposed to feel about the stories, instead of letting me make my own opinion in peace.I give it 4 because it's about museums and history, and those are awesome. I can't believe that this show has 8 points on IMDb. It says more about the quality of American television than the quality of this show.Regards, Annoyed European